There were 5 murders-for-hires claims, not all which were linked to Force. They don't rely on his testimony or affidavit.
You're conflating different charges here.
"After all, the FBI stole the Ulbricht's laptop from the library."
Don't see how that's relevant.
> And obviously such murder charge "helped" the Judge to make up her mind, especially with respect to sentencing, and prepare her Grand Condemnation Speech (and to not let the Speech go waste the Judge didn't let the Ulbricht's defense to bring up the Force's and Bridge's crimes while that murder charge based on the Force's testimonies was heavily affecting the case).
They weren't allowed to bring it up publically, but they argued in front of the Judge all they wanted, so the claim that it affected the judge is irrelevant. The only people who couldn't see it that mattered was the jurt, but you'd have to claim that evidence gathered by Force/Bridges was brought up in court; that is not true, as far as I know.
There was sufficient evidence of the murder for hire charges just from the laptop seized with no input from Force.
>not all which were linked to Force. They don't rely on his testimony or affidavit.
You're right :) The other 5 didn't have even as much as the words of criminally crooked DEA agent behind them and thus quietly disappeared.
>You're conflating different charges here.
No, the Maryland case is exactly that 1 last murder-for-hire claim left - of SR employee CCG (Green) which is based on Force's testimony.
>"After all, the FBI stole the Ulbricht's laptop from the library."
>Don't see how that's relevant.
As i already explained (and you can google it yourself), that charge was used by prosecution to argue to suppress (and the suppression was granted) the 4th Amendment defense's motion.
>so the claim that it affected the judge is irrelevant.
Judge denied bail and denied disclosure of witnesses to defense because of that charge. How that can be said irrelevant? Judge sentenced Ulbricht to life, harshest possible sentence here. Obviously it was relevant here too.
>There was sufficient evidence of the murder for hire charges just from the laptop seized with no input from Force.
Until you was on that Maryland Grand Jury and witnessed yourself how the Jury guessed just from the laptop that the "Nob" was an undercover agent who was working on the case since specific date in 2012 ... As they clearly state in the indictment that it was such an undercover agent, thus they must have heard the testimony by Force, and thus whether this testimony was necessary is really a moot point because they did heard it and gave appropriate weight to it. Arguing after-the-fact that some "poisoned fruit" wasn't important would be an obvious loophole around "no fruit of poisoned tree" principle and thus isn't acceptable. And by the way, the laptop was stolen illegally, the 4th Amendment violation. And now see above about the 4th rights suppression :)
>No, the Maryland case is for the 1 murder-for-hire claim - of SR employee CCG (Green) which is based on Force's testimony.
Yes, but you also referred to murder for hire charges as influencing the judge; why do you think it's specifically Force's testimony that influenced her, as opposed to all the other evidence?
>As i already explained (and you can google it yourself), that charge was used by prosecution to argue to suppress (and the suppression was granted) the 4th Amendment defense's motion.
Can you excerpt the part of that document 9in a more searchable form here https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/silkr...) that says that? I've read through much of it, and the charge isn't mentioned as part of any 4th Amendment claims; it's hard to see how that would even make sense legally.
>Judge denied bail because of that charge. How that can be said irrelevant?
It's irrelevant insofar as any claims that Force isn't reliable; the judge knew whatever was from Force (which you still haven't shown, but even if you did), and the judge knew Force was being charged, so they could take it into account.
>As they clearly state in the indictment that it was such an undercover agent, thus they must have heard the testimony by Force, and thus whether this testimony was necessary is really a moot point because they did heard it.
They Maryland Jury may have heard from Force, but that wasn't what his trial was based on. To support your claim above, you need to show that what he was actually sentenced on was based on Force's testimony/affidavit, and as there was plenty of evidence without Force and nothing obtained by Force was brought up in the trial, your claim seems very week.
>And by the way, the laptop was stolen illegally
Says who? They had a warrant. Did you even read that document you linked?
There is nothing about Force's crimes in the document. So the "honest" Force's testimony based Maryland case (read the description of the other 5 murder-for-hire claims if you don't see how the Maryland was the Force's case, and it was the only claim that made it at least to the indictment stage) was used to deny bail in the New York case where Ulbricht was sentenced to life. Or to "protect" witnesses from him - https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/nysd/422824/107-0.... If you fail to see connection here ... Anyway, i rest my case :)
Edit: in response to your response below - denied bail, denied timely access to witnesses, denied other stuff with that "murder-for-hire" going though a lot of the trial's documents - it is obviously that Judge "gave notice" to that charge and thus the trial was obviously "poisoned". As i already mentioned above, allowing for the after-the-fact calculation of exact gaps and other effects by the "poison" would be a loophole around the "no-poisoning" principle. The trial was materially poisoned, and thus the sentence poisoned too.
That document is from 2013; did the government even know Force was guilty of anything at the time?
And that doesn't prove your claim that he was sentenced to life based on Force's testimony, only denied bail. There's quite a large gap between those two claims.
You're conflating different charges here.
"After all, the FBI stole the Ulbricht's laptop from the library."
Don't see how that's relevant.
> And obviously such murder charge "helped" the Judge to make up her mind, especially with respect to sentencing, and prepare her Grand Condemnation Speech (and to not let the Speech go waste the Judge didn't let the Ulbricht's defense to bring up the Force's and Bridge's crimes while that murder charge based on the Force's testimonies was heavily affecting the case).
They weren't allowed to bring it up publically, but they argued in front of the Judge all they wanted, so the claim that it affected the judge is irrelevant. The only people who couldn't see it that mattered was the jurt, but you'd have to claim that evidence gathered by Force/Bridges was brought up in court; that is not true, as far as I know.
There was sufficient evidence of the murder for hire charges just from the laptop seized with no input from Force.