i really wish we could get this guy out of prison. he does not deserve to be there for longer than 10 years.
"Using the online moniker “Dread Pirate Roberts,” or “DPR,” ULBRICHT controlled and oversaw every aspect of Silk Road, and managed a staff of paid, online administrators and computer programmers who assisted with the day-to-day operation of the site. Through his ownership and operation of Silk Road, ULBRICHT reaped commissions worth more than $13 million generated from the illicit sales conducted through the site. ULBRICHT also demonstrated a willingness to use violence to protect his criminal enterprise and the anonymity of its users, soliciting six murders-for-hire in connection with operating the site, although there is no evidence that these murders were actually carried out."
Should a drug kingpin who built a global network that facilitated the transfer of illegal substances who was willing to kill people to protect that enterprise only get 10 years?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for drugs to be decriminalized in the US, but where the line is crossed for me is that this person was willing to KILL others in service of making money.
This was not proven in court, and at least two federal agents involved in the investigation were found guilty for misconduct related to the investigation, which should at least put doubt on the more salacious elements of the investigation.
The judge took the prosecution's accusation that Ross Ulbricht was responsible for murders-for-hire as truth, and used it to justify a sentence that is cruel and onerous given what he was actually convicted for. In my opinion, that should be considered an unconstitutional violation of due process, since the defense did not get to respond to those accusations as they would in a normal trial. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court refused to hear Ulbricht's appeal, IIRC.
However the evidence that should have been thrown out was pretty clear he tried to order the murder of numerous people. He should 100% be convicted of that and spend many years in prison because you know, we as a society decided somewhere along the way that paying someone to kill people is bad. Fortunately he just got scammed by the hitman haha. Had he actually been competent enough to hire a real hitman there would be a pile of bodies to his name.
He's not a good guy lol. He's a bad guy, who should be out on a technicality for the charges he got convicted on - but really would likely spend the rest of his days in prison for the other things he definitely did do. The government simply chose not to pursue those charges because they'd already lined up a slam dunk. Not because they couldn't charge it, just that they had better things to do than smacking a dead horse around.
The murder for hire claims lack necessary evidence to convict. Outside that it becomes a question of whether platform owners are responsible for the content on their platform.
I am personally in favor of content owners being responsible. I think Mark Zuckerberg should be in prison. However, Mark Zuckerberg is not in prison, and continues to wreak havoc on humanity. Why is Ulbricht responsible for what happened on his platform, but Zuckerberg is not?
In my view, Ulbricht should be free so long as Zuckerberg is free.
Ulbricht created a website to sell drugs and made efforts not to police the platform.
It's pretty clear what the difference is between someone who makes a platform that can be used by bad actors but makes efforts to stop them, versus someone who makes a platform for bad actors and tries to protect them.
This is jurisdiction-dependent. Facebook (a US entity) does things in other countries that would be illegal in the US, such as in Vietnam where it turns over identity information of protesters to police without due process, for beatings/torture purposes.
> Ulbricht created a website to sell drugs and made efforts not to police the platform.
There is another separate moral question about whether or not this should be illegal at all. Even if you think it should, most people agree that the penalties imposed for same in the USA are insanely disproportionate.
Jimmy Carter once said:
"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed."
There's also the small issue of the hundreds of billions of dollars of whoring and drug retailing that happens via WhatsApp and Facebook and Instagram DMs. WhatsApp is literally the biggest drug marketplace on planet Earth. Nobody seems to bat an eye at the fact that Meta/Facebook could but does not police these.
The other commenter is right: If Zuckerberg is free, then so should DPR be.
Your belief in the law doesn’t change its status. What he did was very illegal, with all use cases to support illegal activity. This wasn’t about possession for an individual, it was a mechanism for large scale distribution of illegal products.
It’s apples and oranges to compare the two.
The undisputed fact that DSR existed to help people do all kinds of illegal things doesn't make those things wrong, and it doesn't make it bad for DSR to have helped them do those things. Fortunately, I wasn't a user, but as I understand it, DSR dramatically reduced the violence and risk of contamination involved in illegal drug use—the next best thing to actual full legalization of those drugs.
The US's drug laws are morally utterly indefensible, and the fact that DSR was violating them on a massive scale is something to be proud of, not ashamed of.
I would dispute that the mere fact that he did not have a jury trial where he lived was unfair and an indication that he did not actually have a jury of his peers. He was arrested in San Francisco and tried in New York City. Those are different worlds on technology and drug issues.
Meanwhile for making a website for an illicit market that explicitly sought to reduce violence between people who would otherwise buy or sell their drugs in a situation classically prone to violence — big U received not one but two life sentences.
America has some extremely strange investigation, prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration priorities. One can reasonably call them absurd and unjust, but many Americans will simply tell you that he deserves what he gets. They don’t remark if the rest of us deserve it as well. We are all poorer for this kind of a railroading.
There's names of people in the public Congressional record that you cannot put in any post in any context.
The 2020 riots were coordinated on FB.
According to the White House press secretary, the WH sends lists of people to Facebook to censor who did not commit crimes.
If you are successfully opposed to the regime, for example popular voices against US criminal actions regarding Ukraine, you get nerfed.
Azov Batallion was previously banned from FB because they are literally Nazis, but ever since the government started giving weapons to these Nazis you can praise them without concern you will get banned.
Because they wanted to appease russia, which proven to be futile.
> The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia,[60][16] with connections to neo-Nazism[214] and members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia, and expressing neo-Nazi views.[58][215]
> The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel (or a mirrored variation of it),[216][217][218][219] a German heraldic charge inspired by historic wolf traps adopted by the Nazi Party and by WW2 German military units. Its insignia also used to feature the Black Sun,[220][221][222][211][209] both of which remain two popular neo-Nazi symbols.[210][194][220][215] Azov soldiers have worn fascist or Nazi-associated symbols on their uniforms,[223] including swastikas and SS symbols.[23] In 2014, the German ZDF television network showed images of Azov fighters wearing helmets with swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous black-uniformed elite corps".[224] In 2015, Marcin Ogdowski, a Polish war correspondent, gained access to one of Azov's bases located in the former holiday resort Majak; Azov fighters showed him Nazi tattoos as well as Nazi emblems on their uniforms.[225][16]
Yep, the available "evidence" comes from those corrupt federal agents who robbed MtGox, and who fabricated the evidence which prevented Ulbricht's bail. The murder for hire wasn't proven, yet it was used to significantly enhance the sentence, basically a loophole allowing to punish for alleged acts without "proven beyond reasonable doubt" for those acts.
So, in short the trial is tainted beyond any salvage. Note - i have no idea whether Ulbricht did it or not.
But we should get the authors and participants in the torture regime first.
Asking because I’ve read the story of Silk Road but didn’t hear about this other than the bitcoin theft
what can be worse abuse of state power than that, or what other purpose for abusing state power other than money? It seems that everything else what they did kind of flows from the theft.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-silk-road-task-force-a... :
>Bridges’ plea agreement also established that he obstructed the Baltimore federal grand jury’s investigations of Silk Road and Ulbricht in a number of ways, including by impeding the ability of the investigation to fully utilize a cooperator’s access to Silk Road.
That grand jury indictment in Baltimore based on false info from those agents was the reason for denying bail to Ulbricht, and basically prejudiced the judge in the main case.
>According to his plea agreement, Bridges admitted that in January 2013 he used an administrator account on the Silk Road website
There seems to be enough indications to support for a variety of speculations like for example that the agents may have scapegoated Ulbricht, say may be he was an admin or a dev there and was made into the "kingpin", or something like this. Again it is impossible to say anything for sure as the trial wasn't just a fruit of poison tree, it were total poisoned deadlands.
Except that it would be, you know, actual work.
One rule for the rich in America, another rule for the rest of us.
- I think his sentencing was unfair and he should have to be convicted of the murder-for-hire charges in order for them to factor into his sentence. His sentence should be overturned immediately.
- I think he's almost certainly guilty of the murder-for-hire attempts and I hope he's re-tried, convicted of those charges, and re-sentenced to life in prison.
What if he actually isn’t guilty of those accusations?
What should happen to the agents of the state who either entrapped (if true) or fabricated (if false) those claims?
And really, whole-real-actual-life for a first time offender for a made up crime that didn’t happen and was seemingly initiated by corrupt officers who were convicted of their corruption?
I am asking myself: What are the both sides for this person?!
Shaun Bridges of the US secret service and Carl Force of the US DEA were siphoning bitcoin off to their personal accounts throughout the investigation. Bridges even tried to flee the country while on bail.
Think what you want about Ulbrict, but the cops that took him down were every bit as dirty as he was, if not more.
If a journalist or academic gets found to have knowingly fabricated even the smallest detail it immediately calls into question their entire body of work, and even colleagues they may have worked with.
These are federal agents and the best standard we can hold them to is "oh, we don't have direct evidence of other crimes so we'll just assume the first time we caught you was the first time you did it"
They sold him details of the case for bitcoin into their personal wallets. It wasn't part of a sting or intel operation. The same cops that built the case against him were themselves indicted for money laundering payments they received from Ross. Multiple independent agencies and field offices with rogue agents undermining the cases they were building in real time for personal gain that was contemporaneously worth less than a million dollars.
We don't allow it from cops (they're going to jail). In the case of these two cops, it's not clear what you want. From what I can tell, they weren't allowed to testify, and they gathered none of the evidence used to convict him. Instead, that evidence was to be used in another trial on different charges and the government dropped those charges because the cops were unreliable.
Obviously the agents who stole the funds were dirty, but the contents of your first paragraph is called a criminal investigation. Nothing untoward there (as described, at least).
For my 2 cents it seems entirely reasonable that an armed gang backed by the state would consider themselves to be individually above the law, since they are constantly told that the ends always justify the means, no matter how odious those means may be.
Here's the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy...
Page 5 of the indictment includes the murder-for-hire activity as part of the first count ("Narcotics trafficking conspiracy"). Ulbricht was convicted on this count of the indictment.
Here is Ulbricht's appeal against sentence to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1862572.html
Ulbricht doesn't even bother arguing that the court was wrong in considering the murder-for-hire during sentencing, only that they shouldn't merit a life sentence because they probably didn't actually take place.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1862572.html#foot...
Later
I removed ", and bets more of the case on it.", to dial it back a little.
What you're doing here is presenting the indictment with the murder-for-hire as overt acts and relying on the sleight of hand that the reader will assume the conviction asserts the overt acts, when in fact the conviction only generally relies on at least one overt act (and need not be any murder-for-hire related one).
If a defendant has been convicted and then goes on to hold the court publicly in contempt gets a harsher sentence than someone who is truly reticent and has taken actions to attempt to restore their victims even before sentencing.. I don't see how justice has been unequally applied. The two defendants _are_ unequal. That's the point.
Now I understand your position and even agree with it to a point, the idea that justice is blind means judgment is without consideration of undue influence.
Like many things, balance is the best approach. Minimum sentences came about when the prior sentences were perceived to be unreasonable.
Don’t get me started on prison reform, though. Blind or not, US prisons are inherently unconstitutional.
Clearly he didn’t just build a drug website, he was fine ending lives for it. A slap on the wrist (even if his family thinks he is a good guy) wouldn’t deter him much, it would seem.
And the first judge very much agreed with your assessment.
[1]: https://freeross.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sentencing_2...
For a criminal conviction, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
For sentencing, judges can consider evidence under a different standard, "preponderance of the evidence". As prosecutors introduced evidence of the murder-for-hire allegations in trial, the judge was permitted to consider it.
True, but I see a bigger problem with sentencing being based on conduct that the defendant was acquitted of. The concept is supposed to be that if you were acquitted, you didn't commit the crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Murder-for-hire_...
>>> Sentencing has always had unprovable stuff considered.
But still, looking outside this trial, sentences being handed out based on acquitted conduct is very much a thing that happens, and it shouldn't be allowed.
The standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The standard for something to be considered in sentencing is "perponderance of the evidence".
As such, it's possible for a judge to take a look at a case where a conviction couldn't be obtained, but consider the evidence to be compelling enough to use in sentencing for something else.
And it's not relevant anyway. Once you're acquitted, you didn't commit the crime. Hazy evidence that you did commit the crime might be something the sentencing judge can legitimately consider, but it's necessarily overruled by the fact that you didn't commit the crime, which is something the sentencing judge must consider.
That's true, but that's not relevant, because that's not the scenario. The standard for criminal conviction is not the standard for “to claim that you did this”, it is the standard to determine the maximum legal criminal punishment.
The standard for a judge to assign punishment within the range specified by the statute under which a person was convicted is lower, because by definition the facts which allow the maximum sentence in that range have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
> Once you're acquitted, you didn't commit the crime
Legally “didn’t commit the crime” (and thus not allowing separate punishment for the crime) is not the same as “did not do something substantially similar to the crime“ (which therefore might be eligible for sanctions other than separate criminal punishment, such as enhancements within the statutorily authorized range of punishments for another crime, civil liability, or all kinds of different things.)
Heck, it doesn't even mean “did not commit a crime with substantially identical elements within the jurisdiction of a separate sovereign with concurrent jurisdiction”, though that's not directly relevant to this case.
I don't think you'll find many people arguing that this is a state of affairs that makes any sense. My position in this thread takes the form "the justice system is doing something that is self-evidently insane". And that's also what I would say here. Being insane in one way doesn't stop you from being insane in another way.
> The standard for criminal conviction is not the standard for “to claim that you did this”
And this just isn't true. The standard for making the claim is the standard for conviction. As far as the law is concerned, the conviction is how you make the claim. As a person, if you make the claim in the absence of a conviction you'll run into serious legal problems. Unless, apparently, you're handing down a sentence for some other crime, in which case anything goes.
No, you won't. Heck, as a person, you can make the same claim in court and win a sizable payout based on it with evidence insufficient for a criminal conviction, even if the elements required for civil liability are identical to those for the crime, because the standard of evidence in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt like a criminal conviction.
The high burden of proof required for criminal conviction specifically exists as a narrow purpose failsafe that doesn't apply in other contexts even within the criminal justice system.
Again, this isn't true. The standard for evaluating a claim is different for conviction versus sentencing.
> As a person, if you make the claim in the absence of a conviction you'll run into serious legal problems.
No, you won't, at least not necessarily. Libel would be a civil action, and as with sentencing, the standard is lower in a civil trial. This is, for example, why OJ Simpson got acquitted in criminal court but was deemed culpable for the murders in civil court.
No. "Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent".
Not guilty means they could not prove you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; that it's possible that you're innocent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence is a useful resource for understanding why a person is innocent unless and until they have been proven guilty.
It is surprising that this is even a matter of debate. This is a basic fact taught as part of U.S. compulsory education.
For example suppose I were convicted for reckless driving for driving 300% over the speed limit in a school zone while school was in session. That same evidence could have been used for a speeding charge instead of a reckless driving charge.
It would not be violating innocent until proven guilty or due process if my sentencing for reckless driving took into account my extremely high speed, even though I was not charged or convicted of speeding. My driving 300% over the speed limit was proven as part of convicting me for reckless driving and the court can treat my driving that fast as a fact.
In the Ulbricht case the murder-for-hire stuff was part of the basis for one of the conspiracy charges, evidence was heard for it in regards to that, and he was convicted on that charge. So the court can take it as a fact because of that and use it when considering the sentencing for that conviction.
Ulbricht was never charged with this, never-mind convicted.
Those are allegations that were dropped and likely raised in very sketchy circumstances to begin with. Anyone, including you, could have allegations made against them and then dropped later, FWIW.
When it crosses into "casually ordering multiple murders he believed happened," then, no, I'm sorry, you're not just running a marketplace. You deserve to be behind bars for a long, long time. The only reason that nobody actually died from that was because he was surrounded by scammers and informants, and didn't realize this. But incompetence is no defense against ordering multiple murders.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/inside-silk-road-staged-... has a lot of details on the absurdities surrounding it, but DPR genuinely did believe he'd ordered people killed.
Martin Shkreli was in the easiest parts of prison for example. Ross is in the lifer prison with the hardest criminals.
It's said he's struggling a lot because you have to join the racist white groups in lifer prison, and his morals don't allow that. But you have to, or you have no protection, and may get killed.
The US prison system is a far scarier place than anyone thinks about. You essentially have to stay blind to what happens inside, or you couldn't with good conscious send anyone there.
What was the nature of your case? Or are you saying you're DPR?
Said by who?
Wikipedia also says "Ulbricht was separately indicted in federal court in Maryland on a single murder-for-hire charge, alleging that he contracted to kill one of his employees (a former Silk Road moderator). Prosecutors moved to drop this indictment after his New York conviction and sentence became final"
Try this: Google [federal narcotics conspiracy "murder for hire"] (it's not a rare combination of factors!), pull up some DOJ press releases (I found several on the first search results page), and then look them up in PACER. I'm looking at Roger Key (a.k.a. "Luchie")'s 2015 indictment right now, and it's similar. This isn't some weird finagling the prosecutors did with Ulbricht; it's just how you get charged for this kind of conduct.
This notion that prosecutors somehow gave up on the murder-for-hire charge is Internet folklore. It's just not real. What complicated the charge isn't some bungling spy story about the agents involved, but the fact that the murder was a set-up and he didn't actually have anyone killed. But the prosecution established that Ulbricht tried to, and that's also the simplest and most reasonable conclusion to reach given the facts. I've never read an exculpatory explanation of Ulbricht's payment to arrange murders that made any sense at all.
This. The mental gymnastics involved in people pivoting from "the justice system is awful, especially the way they've treated poor little Ulbricht" to "the only possible standard for judging Ulbricht's character and intentions is the decisions the justice system made or didn't make" is Olympian.
I'm not sympathetic to him in the slightest. I believe he's almost certainly guilty of attempting to have those people murdered. I think his sentence should be overturned and I think he should be explicitly charged with attempted murder, and hopefully he will be convicted of those crimes and re-sentenced to life in prison. (Whether or not that's legally viable, I have no idea; I just think it's what ought to happen.)
You seem to be saying that the reason he wasn't charged/convicted is because nobody was actually murdered. That seems hard for me to believe because the state would have known nobody was actually murdered when they were writing the indictment (which alleges the murder for hire plot) or when they were bringing the original charges.
It's also true that agents involved in the plot, the agent Ulbricht thought he was buying the hit from specifically, were arrested and convicted for stealing from the silk road. I think it's way more plausible that the government decided not to go in to the extent of the corruption of their officers at trial, because it would provide a good reason to think about what other government dishonesty their might be, rather than the government deciding that they can't charge attempted murder for hire because nobody died.
https://www.wired.com/2015/03/dea-agent-charged-acting-paid-...
The second bit, about nobody needing to be dead for him to be charged, we agree on.
One reason I think people are confused about this is that there was a second prosecution, by a different team of prosecutors in a different case (out of Baltimore?) that charged the murder-for-hire scheme more directly. That may be, but he was still charged for it in the SDNY case, which earned him a life sentence.
SDNY was not evasive about this! They not only indicted for the murder-for-hire scheme, won a conviction on it, and had him sentenced based in large part on it, but also crowed about it in their press release. I'm sort of baffled by the extremely common belief that the DOJ "dropped the charges" about the murder-for-hire scheme. They did more or less the opposite thing.
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread-pi...
Noticeably not on that list is anything related to murder, attempted murder, solicitation of murder, or murder-for-hire.
If I understand you correctly you are saying that the attempted murder is an element of his continuing criminal enterprise - or something like that. I don't believe this though and I haven't seen any evidence of this from you. Googling for people who are convicted for hiring fake hitmen I see that they are charged with things like "Solicitation of murder" and not "Continuing criminal enterprise."
Ulbricht was not charged with murder for hire in New York and he wasn't convicted of it ever. Ulbricht was charged with murder for hire in Maryland and those charges were dropped.
"ULBRICHT, 30, of San Francisco, California, was found guilty of: one count of distributing narcotics, one count of distributing narcotics by means of the Internet, and one count of conspiring to distribute narcotics, each of which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years; one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison; one of count of conspiring to commit computer hacking, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of conspiring to traffic in false identity documents, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years; and one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided for informational purposes only, as the sentence will be determined by the judge. ULBRICHT is scheduled to be sentenced on May 15, 2015."
1. distributing narcotics
2. distributing narcotics via the internet
3. count of conspiring to distribute narcotics
4. engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise
5. conspiring to commit computer hacking
6. conspiring to traffic in false identity documents
7. conspiring to traffic in false identity documents
In the released indictment [2] (Apparently there seems to be a superseding indictment), DPR was charged on four counts. Count one is "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy", none of the counts are "Murder-For-Hire". But, there are three overt (motivating) acts for the "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy": a) Provide a platform for selling drugs b) Solicit a murder-for-hire c) Logging in as admin on Silk Road
So, while the charge "Murder-For-Hire" probably seems hard to prove (as stated above), using the intent of it to justify the count "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy" worked here. In a sense, I believe, DPR can not be labeled officially with "murder-for-hire", but in order to protect his "Continuing Criminal Enterprise" and as such commit "Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy" it appears that he would have committed a "murder-for-hire" crime.
Sources:
[1] https://www.springsteadbartish.com/federal-criminal-defense-...
[2] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy...
What seems more likely is that the murder-for-hire thing is messier than the broader, abstract things he was charged with, and they had him dead to rights on that stuff anyways. Without meaningfully contesting and refuting the murder-for-hire stuff, it's relevant conduct for the sentencing; it did the work the DOJ needed it to do.
The big issue in these discussions is the idea that the murder-for-hire stuff was prejudicial --- that it wasn't a part of the case, but was allowed to hang over the case to taint the jury. But that's clearly not true; he was indicted for it, twice, in the SDNY case.
Certainly. And no wonder that the other charges from the Maryland District were dismissed.
> he was indicted for it, twice, in the SDNY case.
You mean, he was charged and found guilty of "Murder-For-Hire"? This I don't follow. I thought overt acts serve the purpose of evidence for the charges/counts rather than being charges itself.
In any case, DPR clearly concluded, that paying someone to kill someone else in order to preserve his anonymity/enterprise was OK. He even committed it.
I would appreciate being reminded as to the facts of that. I’ve always felt skeptical of that claim, but I haven’t spent the time to research it.
It just felt like that would be the exact thing an organization would pin on him if they wanted to destroy his life.
It’s entirely possible he did, but I remind you that in an era where Epstein probably didn’t kill himself, it’s really hard to just take things at face value.
EDIT: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32057717 is a pretty good overview.
There is no serious doubt that he solicited multiple hits, both from an undercover FBI agent and from other people, possibly scammers. It is up to you what moral weights you want to assign to US drug policies, that the FBI agent was corrupt [2], or that apparently no one actually got killed, but it's silly that people are still disputing the plain fact that Ross Ulbricht tried to have people murdered.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-bos...
> Dread Pirate Roberts 3/29/2013 22:55: Hi again R&W, I hate to come to you with a problem when we are just starting to get to know one another, but Blake (FriendlyChemist) is causing me problems. Are you still looking for him or now that you've found Xin have you given up? I would like to put a bounty on his head if it's not too much trouble for you. What would be an adequate amount to motivate you to find him? Necessities like this do happen from time to time for a person in my position. I have others I can turn to, but it is always good to have options and you are close to the case right now. Hopefully this is something you are open to and can be another aspect of our business relationship. Regards, DPR
> Dread Pirate Roberts 3/31/2013 8:59: Don't want to be a pain here, but the price seems high. Not long ago, I had a clean hit done for $80k. Are the prices you quoted the best you can do? I would like this done asap as he is talking about releasing the info on Monday
[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/8q845p/dea-agent-who-faked-a...
You might want to give me a really good price.
I find it quite sad that people on this site will say things like "it was unjust for allegations not proved at trial to be used against him at sentencing" and yet always believe that this same logic shouldn't apply to the "average bad person". The logical extension of the arguments below you is at a minimum support for someone like Chesa Boudin. Probably it's far further than what Boudin's (at least publicly) expressed.
(Quotes not direct. Combinations of things I've heard many different people say differently)