BRADY RULE VIOLATIONS DURING SILK ROAD CASE:
-This piece is dedicated to demonstrating the countless occasions in which the government and court violated the Brady Rule (stating that it is unlawful to suppress any evidence favourable to a defendant) during the Silk Road investigation, trial, and sentencing. However, this piece is not specifically centralized to the Silk Road case, as it is just one of many cases in which the government have found it acceptable to overthrow the laws of the country and disregard true justice. I hope to give you an insight into the battle to shape the slowly corrupting government which now defines our world, and whoever wins will influence not only the future of the internet, but the very principle of what it means to be free.
-The government failed to produce exculpatory material in a timely fashion that would have permitted the defense effective use of the material and information at trial. Therefore restricting the defense from forming an efficacious argument within the given time scale. Resulting in a violation on the Brady rule.
- “The Brady rule safeguards the fundamental principal that a trial is a search for the truth and protects the Government's unique interest in a criminal prosecution not to win a case, but ensure that justice shall be done.” Clearly, the Brady rule was explicitly contravened on countless occasions during the Silk Road investigation and later Trial. This is evident from the General Warrant applied throughout the search and seizure of Ross' digital applications, such as his laptop, laptop files, Gmail account and Facebook. All of which required a Specific Warrant in order to be investigated. Nonetheless, the government thought it acceptable to intercept his personal property regardless of the fact that in doing so with a general Warrant, they themselves were infiltrating the Law. Not only could this implicate the government in fabricating files on Ross' laptop (as several DEA agents were later tried and convicted for money laundering within the Silk Road, and fabricating Government documents) but this also highly violates Ross' 4th and 5th Amendment rights. The fourth “prohibitng unreasonable searches and seizures.” And the fifth “protecing the rights to due process.”
- The Brady Rule also states, “The Government has a constitutional duty to disclose favourable evidence to the accused.” During the Silk Road trial, innumerable amounts of predominant information favourable to the Defense and defendant was withheld. For example, the fact that several DEA agents were under investigation (they had not been convicted at the time) as they were largely suspected of money laundering within the Silk Road website. Moreover, these agents had been undercover in the site for nearly two years, and had gained a high ranking status within the community by this time. Subsequently, with both trust from the users, and government tools, were quite easily able to attain the passwords of many Silk Road accounts and consequently gaining the control of them. These agents also had the means to manipulate logs, chats, private messages, keys, posts, account information and bank accounts. Because of the discovery that these agents were corrupt, and could have fabricated certain evidence in the prosecutions favour, or to disengage themselves from any suspection and illegal involvement, all evidence acquired by them should have been declared immaterial. Furthermore, the Brady Rule was further violated as the Jury was restricted from knowing that these agents were corrupt, and could have caused extensive internal corruption, and were severly advised and instructed against searching the web for information regarding the Silk Road case. Notwithstanding the investigation into this corruption, the government and prosecution continued to use the evidence obtained by the agents. Which is clearly unconstitutional and corrupt in itself. (To this day dozens of encrypted emails sent to and from the undercover corrupt agents remain undeciphered).
“The fantasy is, that this sentence is anything more that purely punitive and completely beyond the range of what drug offenders get in this district, in this circuit, in this country.”- Ross' attorney Joshua Dratel.
- “[t]here are three components of a true Brady violation:
(1)The evidence at issue must be favourable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the [Government], either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued.” I will address each of these components individually, to articulate just how 'above the law' and corrupt the government has become.
(1)- The Mark Karpeles / Alternative Perpetrator Defense:
- Ross Ulbricht's Defense Lawyers had mounted a very effective and constructive argument depicting Mark Karpeles as an alternative DPR. (Although it had been stated by the Defense from the beginning that Ross did start Silk Road as an open market and economic experiment, but passed it on to someone else soon after its creation. This was the only extent of his involvment.). Mark Karpeles (also known under the alias 'MagicalTux', who was the CEO of bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox) had been suspected (and presued by Jared Der-Yeghiayan, who had built a substantial case with probable cause against Mr. Karpeles) of fashioning the DPR pseudonym and running the Silk Road for 2 years prior to the investigation and later arrest of Ross Ulbricht (who had only been under investgation for two months former to the Government apprehending him). Furthermore, Ross has had no prior convictions, or any implications at all with regards to breachings of the Law. While Mr. Karpeles had been suspected and later arrested concerning the falsification of data and the improper tranferring of MtGox funds in February of 2014, and again in August of 2015. Although I am not accusing Mr. Karpeles of running the Silk Road, I am stating that I believe it is exceedingly more plausible to accused a man who had been suspected of infiltrating the law (and later gained convictions) than to suspect a Eagle Scout, who clealy does not fit the typical 'kingpin' demeanour nor had previously been incriminated with any unlawful behaviour.
Due to the mounting evidence (collected by Jared Der-Yeghiayan during his private enquiries and also by Ross' Defense Team's own research) the Defense found it salient and essential that this line of enquiry been taken futher into consideration at Trial to hopefully prevent a corrupt conviction from taking place, that is inconsistent with the law, and blatantly injust. As a result of this, over the course of the first week of the Silk Road Trial, the Defense moulded their case around the rational suggestion that Mark Karpeles could have been an alternative DPR. During this time, the Defense cross examined Jared Der-Yeghiayan, they concluded from this that Mr. Der- Yeghiayan, from his enquiries, not only believed that Mr. Karpeles could be DPR, but suspected multiple people of interacting within the Silk Road via the DPR account. At this time the prosectution objected to the Defence's line of questioning, testifying that the “Defense were accusing an alternative perpetrator.” The court filled with a murmer of laughter at this point, with the Judge commenting “Well yes, how else do you do it?”
As a result from this little outburst by the Prosecution, Judge Forrest found it satisfactory to make the following statements - The fact that the agent persued someone other than the Defendant was “highly relevant” and also “directly relevant”. She also pointed out that the possibility of an alternative suspect was “in the heartland of the Defense.”
However, staggeringly over the course of a weekend, Judge Katherine Forrest deemed any line of investigation or exploration into Mr. Karpeles regarding the possible alternative perpetrator proposition as 'Off limits' or 'Not relevant.' Patently, it is not hard to see that this is an unequivocal and direct infringement of the Brady Rule. By dismissing the Mark Karpeles line of enquiry, the Defense, and I quote from Forbes, was completely 'derailed'. Not to mention that the evidence that could have been unveiled surrounding this questioning and investigation possibly could have overturned the verdict entirely. This was just one of the multitudinous tactics and corrupt ploys organised and effectuated by the government to ensure that Ross be wrongly convicted and sentenced.
(2)- Suppression Of Witnesses/ Documents:
-The second component I would like to discuss is the matter of which “evidence must have been suppressed by the [Government], either willfully or inadvertently.” To express a Brady violation. It is evident that throughout the investigation, and explicitly throughout Ross' trial, an inumberable amount of documents, files and witnesses were suppressed by the government (coincided with by the Court) that was of significant favourability to the Defense.
Furthermore, the Brady Rule can also be violated under the following circumstance..“ If evidence is suppressed when the prosecutor does not disclose it in time for its effective use at trial.” Only ten days before the Silk Road trial was due to commence, over five thousand pages of material favourable to the Defense was submitted by the government. It was highly conjectured by the Defense that an alternative DPR had taken over administration and ownership of the website in the very early stages of its development, and this DPR (from discovering that Law enforcement was taking an exceptional interest into the investigation and closure of the site) thought it sagacious to structure fabricated and tampered with evidence, of which would implicate Ross with the DPR pseudonym and with operating the Silk Road under a high ranking administrative user profile. With this false evidence, DPR then progressed to hack and plant this onto Ross' laptop, in a bid to extricate themselves from any line of enquiry and eliminate themselves from any entanglement within the Silk Road chain of investigation. This theory was highly supported by the five thousand pages of evidence submitted by the government. However, with less than ten days to interpret and construct an effective use of this information, it could not play a part within the trial. This demonstrates yet another clear contravention of the Brady rule. “Even when exculpatory is disclosed, a Brady violation can still occur if the disclosure is untimely.” I believe it is in complete clarity that the government's actions were unprecedented, unlawful, and severly corrupt.
Moreover, I would like to address the fact that the Prosecution put an exceeding amount of effort into banning Ross' libertarian and idealistic views in court. Ross had always been passionate about the idea of a free market, and the ideology of a free flow of trade. With this passion, Ross created a game (prior to the development of the Silk Road) to give people a first hand simulation experience of what it would be like to live in a world of free trade. Although, with this passion came boundaries, Ross strongly believed in a non violent free market, (as the Silk Road strictly restricted violent material, such as Child Pornography, Assassination services and weapons. Unlike many other Tor Web services of the same genre). He gave many lectures around Texas concerning the game, however it did not take off as Ross would have liked. I wished to address Ross' libertarian views as I believe his intentions for the Silk Road were wholly from a economically experimental, libertarian and idealistic point of view. Morally Ross' ideas were completely innocent. The bare principle that we should be allowed to live freely should be, to me, fundamentally elementary. The intentions of the Prosecution however were illicit, detrimental to the sentencing, and barbarous. By banning Ross' principles and libertarian views from the Jury, they were given a very one sided, carefully constructed, completely false, impression of Ross. This is also a violation of the Brady Rule, as the Prosecution suppressed the true characteristics of Ross and his motivations behind the development of Silk Road from appearing in court.
(3)- Chuck Schumer prejudice/ Innocent before proven guilty:
- The third and final component expressing a true Brady violation is one of which states that “prejudice must have ensued.” Chuck Schumer (senior United States Senator and a member of the Democratic Party) Stated the following in a letter to an agent operating on the Silk Road case, just after the arrest of Ross Ulbricht.. “Congratulations, you got your man.” Clearly, prejudice has distinctly been ensued within this statement. It is common knowledge that every defendant has the right to remain “innocent before proven guilty,” However, in this case Mr. Schumer had apparently already tried and convicted Ross and in his eyes, Ross was DPR. If a U.S Senator thinks it admissible to disobey the blatant human rights and laws of the country, what hope do we have for the future of our justice system?
-The following statement was made during the United States v. Washington Trial. “The government’s failure to disclose evidence impeaching the central witness until after the first day of trial prejudiced defendant because the late disclosure prevented defense counsel from investigating and planning overall trial strategy.” This signifies just one of countless occasions and cases of which the Brady Rule has been violated by the government and court in an attempt to suppress impeaching evidence in favour of a Defendant. If we allow this blatant corruption within the “Justice system” to continue, what kind of a world will our future generations thrive in? America's right to free expression and overall Democratic principles and rapidly decaying and are taking the form of a Dictatorship.
I hope this piece has given you an insight into the extensive corruption the government initiate and participate in. For the future of America, your freedom, and for the sanity of our justice system, take a stand against this unlawful inequity, and make a positive impact on our society.
Copyright © 2016 Emily Pont. All rights reserved.
origamiaround
areudirty
ellievsbear
amandla
yousharknotpass
2087
