Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested
Renegade:
So barring Ulbricht's motion coming before an extremely sympathetic judge, it will most likely be dismissed with little comment. (Yes, US judges can do that.)
-40hz (August 05, 2014, 02:01 PM)
--- End quote ---
You think his 4th amendment argument will work?
-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 07:56 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not really. Maybe for some of the evidence. But that's a long shot. And certainly not for all the evidence.
But I'm not an attorney - so who knows?
-40hz (August 05, 2014, 09:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
Got it. For a bit there I thought you were saying that it would work.
My guess is that nothing short of divine intervention will help Ross. The evidence doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter. He is hated, and that's reason enough to punish him.
wraith808:
So barring Ulbricht's motion coming before an extremely sympathetic judge, it will most likely be dismissed with little comment. (Yes, US judges can do that.)
-40hz (August 05, 2014, 02:01 PM)
--- End quote ---
You think his 4th amendment argument will work?
-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 07:56 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not really. Maybe for some of the evidence. But that's a long shot. And certainly not for all the evidence.
But I'm not an attorney - so who knows?
-40hz (August 05, 2014, 09:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
Got it. For a bit there I thought you were saying that it would work.
My guess is that nothing short of divine intervention will help Ross. The evidence doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter. He is hated, and that's reason enough to punish him.
-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 09:53 PM)
--- End quote ---
Or the selection of the right attorney that knows the right judge. And that's a fact.
40hz:
So barring Ulbricht's motion coming before an extremely sympathetic judge, it will most likely be dismissed with little comment. (Yes, US judges can do that.)
-40hz (August 05, 2014, 02:01 PM)
--- End quote ---
You think his 4th amendment argument will work?
-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 07:56 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not really. Maybe for some of the evidence. But that's a long shot. And certainly not for all the evidence.
But I'm not an attorney - so who knows?
-40hz (August 05, 2014, 09:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
Got it. For a bit there I thought you were saying that it would work.
My guess is that nothing short of divine intervention will help Ross. The evidence doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter. He is hated, and that's reason enough to punish him.
-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 09:53 PM)
--- End quote ---
Or the selection of the right attorney that knows the right judge. And that's a fact.
-wraith808 (August 06, 2014, 10:45 AM)
--- End quote ---
In many other criminal cases, possibly/probably.
But not this one.
I think the whole Silk Road thing has gone too high up the flagpole that an attorney "knowing the right judge" is going to help much. There's too many eyes on it - and far too much at stake for the government (which wants to make an example) - for this case to be another "business as usual" criminal proceeding.
40hz:
Mike over at TechDirt weighs in and has reached much the same conclusions I have. But since he writes so much better than I do, I'll just quote the article:
The argument, not surprisingly, is relying on the new Supreme Court ruling in the Riley / Wurie cases, about the need for a warrant to search mobile phones. That is an important ruling bringing back certain 4th Amendment protections, but Ulbricht's lawyers are really trying to stretch it to argue that it applies to the warrants issued against him.
There may be some real issues in how the feds got access to the Silk Road servers, but to claim that other searches (and even actual warrants) were unconstitutional in light of Riley would require an almost ridiculously broad reading of the Riley ruling. That case involved searches of mobile phones that were on someone's person -- not a coordinated effort to track down someone they believed to be a criminal.
I do think there are some real issues with the case against Ulbricht, mainly focused on his liability for the actions done by users of Silk Road, but these kinds of broad attempts to throw anything at the wall are likely to be rejected, and can actually piss off judges who feel that lawyers are just trying to throw up a smoke screen.
There are important cases to be had in challenging various digital searches and how the 4th Amendment applies to them, but it's doubtful that this is a particularly good test case.
--- End quote ---
Renegade:
You highlighted the perfect bit there.
I do think there are some real issues with the case against Ulbricht, mainly focused on his liability for the actions done by users of Silk Road, but these kinds of broad attempts to throw anything at the wall are likely to be rejected, and can actually piss off judges who feel that lawyers are just trying to throw up a smoke screen.
--- End quote ---
Why is that? Because judges don't care about any of the laws that are supposed to restrict how the government can behave. Prosecutors and LEOs even less.
Fact is, if they didn't have their ducks in a row, then tough. Throw the case out.
Those limits placed on what government can do are there for a reason. They are what (ostensibly) separate the republic from an authoritarian police state.
I think we know pretty darn well what will happen. Due process is a joke.
Image source. (Illustration for Canadian Lawyer magazine, August 2008 issue.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version