Indictments are lists of charges; expecting them to be informative for questions other than “what is the defendant being charged with” is irrational. (And “what is the evidence supporting the charges” is a separate question.)
> All the other overt acts listed appear to have been carried out by his unnamed alleged co-conspirator alone.
A conspiracy charge only requires any of the conspirators to have taken an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
I'm assuming at some point there will be a superseding indictment that goes into more detail.
The indictment seems to essentially recite the statutes named, even to the point of preserving the original text in the face of grammatical error.
I am particularly curious about instances where it is clear that the statute was violated by one set, in particular, of several alternate conditions.
Is it the role of the indictment to convey the nature of the alleged acts which broke the law, or to convey the nature of the laws that were broken, irrespective of the details of the acts?
The assertion by a grand jury that a person did one thing OR some other thing, especially, comes across as a little peculiar to a naive reader.
The rest of the overt actions appear to involve marketing and selling it.
For example, many times you will not be prosecuted for pirating content/counterfeiting merchandise/using drugs for your own personal interest, but if you try to advertise/sell such things you're much more likely to become a target.
This phrase piques my FBI informant radar, and for anyone paying attention often they are worse than the people they rat out, but now get magically protected as useful assets.
Surely they have something concrete to tie him to this, regardless, I could very easily see this being the making of a new Sabu. I could also very easily see the unnamed be inventing stuff to get out of the hot seat.
Or he was advertising / making a ham-handed attempt at misdirection.
Well, first, it's an indictment, not a trial. The evidence was presented to a grand jury which found it sufficient to try before a criminal court. It will be presented again at trial, along with whatever else the DoJ has (or else he'll plead out and we'll never see it).
Second, it sounds kinda damning to me: they apparently have him actually selling this thing. If they can prove that, he's toast.