>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.
Looks like the Federales did seize his assets. He may be about to have a bad time.
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.
You seem pretty with it and level-headed, so it seems like we just have different priors.
And that's pretty messed up. It's also messed up that being stuck with a public defender is messed up, but that's another issue. The concept of assuming guilt before trial with respect to your finances is obviously a violation of the spirit - if not the actual letter - of the Fifth Amendment.
First off, you can't just arrest anyone without going in front of a judge and getting an arrest warrant (unless of course a police officer has evidence you committed a crime). Second, they need to identify your assets and then prove that they are proceeds from illegal activities. Do they just say "all of it is"? Probably and the onus is on you to prove otherwise.
And how is it determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, with a vigorous defense) that you committed a crime to yield those proceeds?
Also I can totally be wrong about this its one of those "I' think I heard this a few times" but I think this is one of those things where the burden of proof ends up more on the side of the accused then on the gov't.
That's how tyrannies operate.
The thing is, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not mathematical/logical proof, it's (as I recall the jury instructions I've seen on this) basically proof to a degree that a reasonably diligent person would use in their most important business dealings.
Multiple sources of evidence that point in the same direction, even when there are theoretically possible innocent explanations for all them, can still constitute "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", which is not "proof beyond any doubt".
Not meaningfully, for a number of reasons.
> Say one piece of circumstantial evidence puts the likelihood of guilt at 20%/ not guilty at 80%.
Problem with that is that it is rarely easily quantifiable.
> Now another one has a 15/85 ratio. Take that 15% from 80%
This, of course, assumes that the pieces of evidence are independent, which is not necessarily true.
Applying math to the issue isn't really helpful, because that's not the way jurors process evidence.
And if the system were changed to force them to work that way, it would just be a giant mess.
And how is it determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, with a vigorous defense) whether or not you committed the crime of tax evasion?
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.
The cost of any future trial could be anticipated ahead of time and paid upfront by the perpetrating party. Right?
That way there is no burden on the accused, to prove how the cost of the trial will be borne. Right?
The state (DA) must know that there is certainly no way "Stringer Bell" or "Avon Barksdale" can afford a high priced lawyer (Maurice Levy) from the proceeds of a legitimate yet small-time printing business - an obvious front operation for their drug dealing syndicate, which constituted the lion-share of their earnings.
Right?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stringer_Bell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avon_Barksdale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Levy_(The_Wire)
Sidestepping the due process issue for a moment, is that even a meaningful concept? Money is fungible. If you make $5,000 earned from your day job, and $5,000 from selling drugs, and you spend $5,000 on a car, is the money you have left drug money or honest money?
Alternatively, what stops people from investing in defendants. If Ulrich is in fact DPR and has 80mm in Bitcoins or large portion thereof stashed away somewhere, wouldn't it make sense for some rich person to fund DPR's defense on the condition that a portion of the 80mm is paid to the investor. Everything would be done through a lawyer the investor trusts, and Ulrich would have attorney client privilege and could in fact privately confide through the lawyer how much return he can make on a successful defense.
Spending $1-2 million defending someone, with the chance of getting a 10x return in 1-2 years seems like a pretty good deal if you can build up the rapport
As for everyone having a reasonable suspicion which bitcoin addresses are used for silk road, I would assume Silk Road taint is rather like cocaine on US cash; it's everywhere.
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.