ulbricht post-trial unsealed filings

8/9/2019 Ulbricht post-trial unsealed filings

1/121

U.S. Department of Justice

United States AttorneySouthern District of New York

The Silvio J. Mollo Building

One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007

TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

November 21, 2014

By E-mailHon. Katherine B. ForrestUnited States District JudgeSouthern District of New YorkDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007

Re: Un it ed States v. Ross Wi ll iam U lbr icht , 14 Cr. 68 (KBF)

Dear Judge Forrest:

The Government writes respectfully concerning an ongoing federal grand juryinvestigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District ofCalifornia (“USAO -San Francisco”), in conjunction with the Public Integrity Section of theCriminal Division of the Department of Justice. The subject of the grand jury investigation is aformer Special Agent (“SA”) with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), named CarlForce. In 2012 and 2013, SA Force was involved as an undercover agent in an investigation ofSilk Road conducted by t he U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland (“USAO -Baltimore”). As the Court is aware, USAO -Baltimore has a pending indictment against RossUlbricht, charging Ulbricht with, among other things, soliciting the murder-for-hire of a SilkRoad employee. ( See Attachment A.) SA Force is the undercover agent whom Ulbrichtallegedly hired to arrange the murder-for-hire, as described in that indictment. He is now beinginvestigated by USAO-San Francisco for, among other things, leaking information about USAO-Baltimore ’s investigation to Ulbricht in exchange for payment, and otherwise corruptly obtaining

proceeds from the Silk Road website and converting them to his personal use.

SA Force played no role in the investigation of Silk Road conducted by the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“USAO -SDNY,” or “this Office”),which proceeded on a separate and independent track from the investigation conducted byUSAO-Baltimore. Moreover, the Government does not believe that the ongoing investigation ofSA Force is in any way exculpatory as to Ulbricht or otherwise material to his defense.However, in an abundance of caution, the Government seeks to disclose the investigation of SAForce to the defense, and therefore respectfully requests a protective order authorizing the

Case 1:14-cr-00068-KBF Document 227-1 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 121


2/121

2

Government to do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E) and prohibitingthe defense from disclosing the investigation to any third-party.

Facts

SA Force is being investigated by USAO-San Francisco for a variety of conduct,including suspected misconduct undertaken in his capacity as a DEA undercover agent inUSAO-Baltimore ’s Silk Road investigation . USAO-San Francisco began investigating SA Forcein the spring of this year after learning of suspicious transactions he had had with a certainBitcoin exchange company with a presence in San Francisco. Further investigation by USAO-San Francisco revealed that SA Force held accounts at multiple Bitcoin exchange companies inhis own name, through which he had exchanged hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth ofBitcoins for U.S. currency during 2013 and 2014 and transferred the funds into personal financialaccounts. USAO-San Francisco also learned that SA Force had used his position as a DEA agentto protect these funds, including sending out an unauthorized administrative subpoena to one ofthe Bitcoin exchange companies, purporting to instruct the company to unfreeze an account held

in SA Force ’s name that the company had frozen due to suspicious activity.Since learning this information, USAO-San Francisco has been investigating, among

other things, how SA Force could have come into possession of such a large quantity of Bitcoinsand the extent to which he may have acquired these Bitcoins through his involvement in USAO-Baltimore’s Silk Road investigation . This Office has been assisting USAO-San Francisco withits investigation, by sharing relevant evidence collected from this Office’s investi gation of SilkRoad , including evidence from the server used to host the Silk Road website (the “Silk RoadServer”) and evidence from Ulbricht’s laptop computer . To date, USAO- San Francisco’sinvestigation has uncovered several possibilities as to how SA Force could have acquired a largeamount of Bitcoins through his involvement in USAO- Baltimore’s Silk Road investigation.

1. Leaks of Investigative Information in Exchange for Payment

As discussed further below, SA Force operated an authorized undercover account on SilkRoad under the username “nob ,” which was involved in the murder-for-hire alleged in theUSAO-Baltimore indictment. However, USAO-San Francisco now suspects SA Force of alsooperating at least two other accounts on Silk Road, which were not authorized undercoveraccounts. These accounts appear to have been used to leak (or offer to leak) investigativeinformation to Ulbricht (whom SA Force knew only by his Silk Road username, “ Dread PirateRoberts”) , in exchange for payment in Bitcoin.

One of these accounts is the Silk Road username “french maid.” Evidence from the SilkRoad Server and Ulbricht’s laptop indicates that, in or about mid-September 2013, a Silk Roaduser named “french maid” contacted “Dread Pirate Roberts” via Silk Road’s private messagesystem, claiming that “mark karpeles” had given the true name of “Dread Pirate Roberts” to“DHLS.” Mark Karpeles is the former CEO of a now-defunct Bitcoin exchange companyknown as “Mt. Gox,” whom USAO-Baltimore was seeking to interview in September 2013 todetermine if he had any information concerning the identity of the Silk Road operator “DreadPirate Roberts.” “DHLS” is a possible reference to the Department of Homeland Security,



3/121

3

agents of which were working with USAO-Baltimore ’s investigation. Evidence from Ulbricht’slaptop indicates that Ulbricht paid “french maid” $100,000 in Bitcoins to pass on the name thatKarpeles had supposedly given to authorities , but that “french maid” never replied. 1 Given“french maid’s” use of SA Force ’s first name and apparent knowledge of the USAO-Baltimoreinvestigation with which he was involved, USAO-San Francisco is investigating whether the

“french maid” account was controlled by Force and used to corruptly obtain this $100,000 payment from Ulbricht.

SA Force is also being investigated for leaking investigative information to Ulbrichtthrough a different Silk Road username – “alpacino” (or “albertpacino” or “pacino” ). A filerecovered from Ulbricht’s laptop titled “le_counter_intel” ( i.e. , “law enforcement counterintelligence”) contains extensive records of communications that appear under the heading“correspondence with al pacino. ” The communications purport to be from someone claiming to

be “in the perfect spot to play spy for Silk Road with the DEA.” Like the correspondence from“french maid,” these communications reflect inside knowledge of USAO-Baltimore ’sinvestigation of Silk Road. Further evidence indicates that Ulbricht paid “alpacino” a salary of

$500 per week to supply such information. Accordingly, USAO-San Francisco is investigatingwhether SA Force controlled this username as well and exploited it to exchange investigativeinformation to Ulbricht for payment in Bitcoins. 2

2. Use of Cooperator’s Silk Road Account to Steal Bitcoins from Silk Road

SA Force is also being investigated concerning a theft of $350,000 in Bitcoins that appearto have been taken from Silk Road through the account of a Silk Road employee – the sameemployee at issue in the murder-for-hire allegations charged by USAO-Baltimore. Theemployee, Curtis Green, who went by the username “Flush” on Silk Road, was a cooperator inUSAO-Baltimore ’s investigation at the time, and his handler was SA Force. Green was arrested

by SA Force and several other agents involved in the USAO-Baltimore investigation on January17, 2013. Green cooperated with the investigation following his arrest and turned over his logincredentials to the “Flush” account to SA Force. According to DEA investigative reports filed bySA Force, SA Force initially changed the password on the “Flush” account ; however, the reportsstate that, on or about January 19, 2013, he gave Green the changed password, so that Greencould log in to the account and resume communications with “Dread Pirate Roberts” for the

purpose of acting as a confidential source. 3

1 Ulbricht’s name was not in fact given by Mark Karpeles to any investigators associated withUSAO-Baltimor e’s investigation.2 Silk Road employees are known to have been paid in Bitcoin.3 All of this information has already been disclosed to the defense, as SA Force ’s investigativereports were turned over in discovery pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1), given that they containnumerous recorded statements by the defendant.



4/121

4

Approximately one week later, on January 26, 2013, the “Flush” account appears to have been used to steal approximately $350,000 in Bitcoins from Silk Road. 4 “Dread Pirate Roberts”messaged “Flush” on January 26, 2013, accusing him of stealing the money and warning that hewas “ taking appropriate action. ” Subsequent private messages from the Silk Road Server andchats rec overed from Ulbricht’s computer reflect that Ulbricht subsequently recruited a Silk

Road user he knew as “nob” to have Green killed in retaliation for the theft. The “nob” account ,as noted above, was an undercover account controlled by SA Force. SA Force had been usingthe account to communicate with “Dread Pirate Roberts,” posing as a large-scale drug dealerseeking to do business on Silk Road. As reflected in USAO- Baltimore’s indictment, after beingsolicited to arrange Green’s murder, SA Force contin ued communicating with “Dread PirateRoberts” about what he wanted done and eventually staged Green’s murder to prove that themurder was carried out , for which “Dread Pirate Roberts” paid $80,000.

SA Force ’s use of the “nob” account for this purpose was part of an authorized lawenforcement operation and his communications with “Dread Pirate Roberts” about the murder -for-hire – which have already been disclosed to the defense – are not suspected of being

improper. Moreover, the receipt of the $80,000 payment for the murder-for-hire is documentedin SA Force ’s reports. However, the apparent theft of $350,000 from Silk Road through the useof the Green’s “Flush” account remains unaccounted for. Given that SA Force had the logincredentials to the “Flush” account at the time, he is under investigation for using the account tosteal the funds. 5 Although these funds were criminal proceeds and thus would have been subjectto seizure by law enforcement, USAO-San Francisco is investigating whether SA Force took thefunds without proper authorization and unlawfully converted them to his own personal use.

3. Receipt of Additional Undocumented Payments from “Dread Pirate Roberts”

SA Force continued to use the “nob” account to communicate with “Dread PirateRobert s” through September 2013, and USAO -San Francisco is investigating whether he usedthe “nob” account to receive any payments that are not documented in his investigative reportsfiled with the DEA. In particular, the Silk Road Server contains private messages sent by “DreadPirate Roberts” to “nob” in the summer of 2013, referencing two transfers of Bitcoins made by“Dread Pirate Roberts” to “nob” during this time period – totaling 400 Bitcoins and 525 Bitcoins,respectively (equivalent to approximately $85,000 altogether at then-prevailing exchange rates).However, the receipt or seizure of these Bitcoins does not appear to be reflected in SA Force ’s

4 As a Silk Road administrator, “Flush” had administrative privileges on the Silk Road websitethat gave him certain effective access to user funds, such as the ability to reset user passwordsand thereby take over user accounts.5 According to an investigative report filed by SA Force, Green claimed not to know anythingabout the theft. The report states: “ GREEN has telephoned SA Force on numerous occasionsand advised that he has been ‘racking his brain’ about the supposed theft of $350,000 fromDREAD PIRATE ROBERTS. Note, DREAD PIRATE ROBERTS is accusing GREEN ofstealing the money. GREEN believes that there is a glitch in the website and that somebodyhacked into the SILK ROAD marketplace and stole the Bitcoin. ”



5/121

5

reports. Accordingly, USAO-San Francisco is investigating whether he wrongfully used the“nob” account t o acquire these Bitcoins as well and convert them to his personal use.

Discussion

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) generally prohibits an attorney for theGovernment from disclosing any “matter occurring before the grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P.6(e)(2)(B). The Supreme Court has explained that grand jury secrecy is justified, among otherreasons, by the need to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation and to prevent premature

public disclosure of the fact that an individual is suspected of criminal wrongdoing. See Procter& Gamble Co ., 356 U.S. at 681 n. 6. However, the secrecy requirement of Rule 6(e) is notabsolute. In particular, the rule provides that a court “may authorize disclosure – at a time, in amanner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs – of a grand jury matter . . .

preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E).Disclosure is permissible under this exception if a court presiding over a judicial proceedingdetermines that “ a particularized need for disclosure outweigh[s] the interest in continued grand

jury secrecy.” Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Nw ., 441 U.S. 211, 223 (1979).Here, the Government seeks to disclose to the defense the facts set forth above

concerning the pending grand jury investigation of SA Force, under a protective order thataddresses the need to otherwise keep the investigation confidential. The Government thereforerequests that the Court enter a protective order authorizing the Government to make thisdisclosure under Rule 6(e)(3)(E) and precluding the defense from disclosing the existence ofUSAO- San Francisco’s investigation to any third-party.

To be clear, the Government does not believe that this disclosure is required under Rule16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963).The suspected criminal conduct for which SA Force is being investigated – even if he did in factcommit the conduct – does not exculpate Ulbricht in any way or otherwise materially aid hisdefense. To the contrary, the suspected leaks of investigative information by SA Force indicatethat Ulbricht repeatedly paid a government agent to provide “counter -intelligence” informationin the interest of protecting Silk Road from law enforcement. Likewise, regardless of whetherSA Force or someone else stole $350,000 through the “Flush” account in January 2013 , the factsremain that Ulbricht believed that his employee, Curtis Green, had stolen the funds, and thatUlbricht sought to murder Green for doing so. Finally, any personal use of payments that SAForce received through his undercover “nob” account reflects only corruption on SA Force ’s

part, rather than anything suggestive of Ulbricht’s inno cence.

Moreover, SA Force played no role in this Office’s investigation of Silk Road and theGovernment does not intend to call SA Force as a witness at trial. Thus, the facts underlying theUSAO-San Francisco investigation do not constitute impeachment material for which disclosurewould be required under Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Nor does the Governmentintend to use at trial any communications between Ulbricht and SA Force that were found on theSilk Road Server and Ulbricht’s laptop – even though these communications include highly



6/121

6

incriminating exchanges reflecting Ulbricht’s hiring of “nob” to arrange the murder of CurtisGreen. 6

Although not exculpatory or impeachment material, in an abundance of caution, theGovernment seeks to disclose USAO- San Francisco’s investigation of SA Force to the defense in

order to avoid any dispute concerning whether this information is subject to discovery. Eventhough the disclosure relates to an ongoing grand jury investigation, the Government believesthat, with the entry of a protective order prohibiting further disclosure, the disclosure will besufficiently limited so as to avoid impinging on any interests protected by Rule 6(e), and that thedisclosure is therefore permissible under Rule 6(e)(3)(E). This Office has consulted with USAO-San Francisco, which consents to the proposed disclosure under the requested protective order.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court entera protective order authorizing the Government to disclose to the defense the facts set forth in this

letter and prohibiting the defense from disclosing the existence of USAO- San Francisco’sinvestigation of SA Force to anyone outside the defense team. The Government furtherrespectfully requests that the protective order, and this letter, be maintained under seal.

Respectfully,

PREET BHARARAUnited States Attorney

By: ______________________________SERRIN TURNERAssistant United States AttorneysSouthern District of New York

Encl.

6 The Government does intend to introduce other evidence of this attempted murder-for-hire,through communications that Ulbricht had about it with co-conspirators.



7/121

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- v. –

ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT,a/k/a “Dread Pirate Roberts,” a/k/a “DPR,” a/k/a “Silk Road,”

Defendant.

UNDER SEAL

14 Cr. 68 (KBF)

ORDER

Upon the attached letter from Serrin Turner, Assistant United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York, dated November 21, 2014 (the “Letter”), IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED as follows:

1. Pursuant to Rule 6(e)(3)(E) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the

Government may disclose to the defense the existence of the grand jury

investigation referenced in the Letter.

2. Pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defense

is prohibited from disclosing the grand jury investigation referenced in the Letter

to anyone outside the defense team.

3. The Letter and this Order shall be sealed until such time as the Court otherwise

directs.

Dated: New York, New York November ___, 2014

_____________________________________HON. KATHERINE B. FORRESTUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE



8/121



v. -

ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT,a/k/a Dread Pirate Roberts,a/k/a DPR,a/k/a Silk Road,

Defendant.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

UNDER SE L

14 Cr. 68 (KBF)

Upon the attached letter from Serrin Turner, Assistant United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York, dated November 21, 2014 (the Letter ), IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED as follows:

1 Pursuant to Rule 6( e )(3)(E) of the Federal Rules o f Criminal Procedure, the

Government may disclose to the defense the existence o f the grand jury

investigation referenced in the Letter.2 Pursuant to Rule 16(d)(l) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defense

is prohibited from disclosing the grand jury investigation referenced in the Letter

to anyone outside the defense team.

3. The Letter and this Order shall be sealed until such time as the Court otherwise

directs.

Dated: New York, New YorkN Q v e ~ 9 1 # ' _ ,iW 1 4

_ __

' \ ) ' ~ kJ 2A l f

HON. KATHERINE B. FORRESTUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE



9/121

LAW OFFICES OF

JOSHUA L. DRATEL, P.C.

JOSHUA L. DRATEL

LINDSAY A. LEWISWHITNEY G. SCHLIMBACH

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

9BROADWAY

Suite 1412NEW YORK NEW YORK 10006

TELEPHONE (212) 732-0707FACSIMILE (212) 571-3792

E-MAIL: [email protected]

STEVEN WRIGHTOffice Manager

December 3, 2014

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

FILED UNDER SEAL

The Honorable Katherine B. ForrestUnited States District JudgeSouthern District of New YorkUnited States Courthouse500 Pearl StreetNew York, New York 10007

Re: United States v Ross Ulbricht14 Cr. 68 (KBF)

Dear Judge Forrest:

---··--:.;;:··-=-======-===-=·-::.;-:..:..· ::.; ···;.;..·-·-·

USDC S ~ YDOCUMENT

ELECTRONICALLY FILEDDOC : _ _ _ _ _ _ _

DATE FJLED:]£C_Q_ 2014i . : : · ·

This letter is submitted under seal on behalf of defendant Ross Ulbricht, whom Irepresent in the above-entitled case, respectfully requesting an extension until Tuesday,December 9, 2014, for the filing of Mr. Ulbricht's motions in limine which are currently duetoday, December 3, 2014. Assistant United States Attorney Serrin Turner has informed myassociate, Lindsay A. Lewis, Esq., that the government consents to this request so long as theCourt grants a corresponding extension for the government's motions in limine. The letter is filedunder seal at the government's request because it references the government's sealed letterpursuant to Rule 6(e), Fed.R.Crim.P.

The requested extension is necessary in light of the government 's recent sealed letter to

counsel, which raises additional issues that are appropriately addressed in Mr. Ulbricht'smotions in limine and, in fact, materially affect the motions counsel intended to make. Also,because the deadline for notice of the government's exhibits was changed to today, time will beneeded to review these exhibits prior to the filing o f Mr. Ulbricht's motions in order to determinewhether those exhibits provide a basis for further motions in limine not previously anticipated bycounsel, or possibly obviate the need to make other such motions.



10/121

LAW OFFICES OF

JOSHUA L. DRATEL P.C.Hon. Katherine B. ForrestUnited States District JudgeSouthern District of New YorkDecember 3, 2014Page o f

In addition, the proposed changes in the motion schedule, which would also push backthe due date for motion responses by the parties to December 16, 2014, will compress theCourt s time for consideration of the motions n limine prior to the final pre-trial conference,currently scheduled for Wednesday, December 17 2014, at 2 p.m. The parties are of courseavailable if the Court wishes to adjust the date of that conference.

Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant an extension until Tuesday,December 9, 2014, for the filing of Mr. Ulbricht s motions in limine. As noted, the governmentconsents to this application so long as the Court grants a corresponding extension in regard to thegovernment s motions in limine.

JLD/lal

cc: Serrin TurnerTimothy HowardAssistant United States Attorneys

v ~

l 1-\t1 - - _ :c.,

. s \...J Qi -'.

Respectfully submitted,

~ ~ f ~Joshua L. Dratel

t - (cr .-- or s f i ~s

o ~ os,.-hfr).S ;



11/121

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 14 Cr. 68 (KBF)

- against - : (Electronically Filed)

ROSS ULBRICHT, :

Defendant. :------------------------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT ROSS ULBRICHT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

JOSHUA L. DRATEL, P.C.29 Broadway, Suite 1412

New York, New York 10006

(212) 732-0707

JOSHUA J. HOROWITZ, ESQ.225 Broadway, Suite 1804

New York, New York 10007(845) 667-4451

Attorneys for Defendant Ross Ulbricht

– Of Counsel –

Joshua L. DratelLindsay A. LewisWhitney G. Schlimbach



12/121

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ARGUMENT

POINT I

CERTAIN GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS SHOULD BEPRECLUDED BECAUSE THEY CONSTITUTE

INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND/OR DO NOT QUALIFYAS CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS OR UNDER ANYOTHER HEARSAY EXCEPTION, BECAUSE EVIDENCEOF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TRANSACTIONSBETWEEN THOUSANDS OF ANONYMOUS USERS OFTHE SILK ROAD WEB SITE AT MOST ESTABLISHESMULTIPLE DISCRETE CONSPIRACIES, RATHER THAN THESINGLE UNITARY CONSPIRACY CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A. As a Threshold Matter, Venue Has Not Been Established In the Southern District of New York for the Multiple Conspiracies Alleged Against Mr. Ulbricht . . . . . 4

B. The Conduct Alleged Does Not Fall Within the Scope of the Single Charged Conspiracyand Is Thus Inadmissible As Irrelevant Pursuant to Rules 401 and 402 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

C. The Admission of the Evidence and Government Exhibits Would BeUnfairly Prejudicial to Mr. Ulbricht, Pursuant to Rule 403, Fed.R.Evid. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

POINT II

ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE AND/OR REFERENCESTO THE “MURDER-FOR-HIRE” ALLEGATIONS

SHOULD BE PRECLUDED AT TRIAL, AND ANYAND ALL SUCH LANGUAGE SHOULD BE STRICKENFROM THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT, BECAUSETHEY ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE CHARGED OFFENSESAND/OR, UNDER RULE 403, FED.R.EVID., THEIR UNFAIRPREJUDICIAL EFFECT SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHS

i



13/121

ANY PROBATIVE VALUE THEY MIGHT POSSESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A. The Applicable Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

B. Any and All References to the “Murder-For-Hire” Allegations Should Be

Precluded At Trial, And Stricken from the Superseding Indictment As Surplusage, Because They Are Irrelevant to the Charged Offenses and Unduly Prejudicial . . . . . . . 11

1. The “Murder-For-Hire” Allegations Should Be Excluded Because They Are Irrelevant to the Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2. The “Murder-For-Hire” Allegations Should Be Excluded Because They Are Unduly Prejudicial Pursuant to Rule 403, Fed.R.Evid., As Any Probative Value Is VastlyOutweighed by Their Extraordinary Danger of Unfair Prejudice . . . . . . . . . . . 14

POINT III

CERTAIN GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS SHOULDBE PRECLUDED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOTSUFFICIENTLY AUTHENTICATED PURSUANTTO RULE 901, FED.R.EVID., AND RECENT CASE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

A. The Applicable Law Regarding Authentication Under Rule 901 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

B. The Facts and Opinion In Vayner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

C. Vayner ’s Application to the Government’s Proposed Exhibits In This Case . . . . . . . . . 20

POINT IV

CERTAIN EVIDENCE AND GOVERNMENT EXHIBITSALLEGING PURCHASE OF FALSE IDENTIFICATIONDOCUMENTS SHOULD BE PRECLUDED BECAUSE THEY ARE

NOT REASONABLY DEMONSTRATIVE OF “CONSCIOUSNESSOF GUILT,” AND/OR THEIR PROBATIVE VALUE, IF ANY,IS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE DANGER OFUNFAIR PREJUDICE TO MR. ULBRICHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A. The Law Applicable to Admissibility of “Consciousness of Guilt” Evidence . . . . . . . . . 21

B. Mr. Ulbricht’s Alleged Purchase of False Identification Documents from the Silk Road Web Site Is Insufficient to Reasonably Infer His Consciousness of Guilt of the Crimes Charged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

ii



14/121

C. Alternatively, Evidence of the Alleged Ordering of False Identification Documents Must Be Excluded Under Rule 403 As Substantially More Prejudicial Than Probative . . . . . 24

POINT V

THE GOVERNMENT’S NOVEMBER 21, 2014, LETTER SHOULD BE UNSEALED, AND THE INFORMATIONAND EVIDENCE THEREIN SHOULD BE ADMISSIBLEAT TRIAL BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT AND EXCULPATORY,THEREBY ESTABLISHING A COMPELLING NEED FOR UNSEALING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

A. The Government’s November 21, 2014, Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

B. The Principles Applicable to Exculpatory Material and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

C. Evidence Related to the Investigation of Misconduct by Former SA Force

During the Silk Road Investigation Is Both Material and Favorable to Mr. Ulbricht . . 2 8

D. The Evidence Related to the Investigation of Former SA ForceShould Be Unsealed Because It Constitutes Brady Material, ThusProviding a Compelling and Particularized Need for Its Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

POINT VI

OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT’SPROPOSED EXHIBITS NOT COVERED ABOVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

iii



15/121

POINT V

THE GOVERNMENT’S NOVEMBER 21, 2014, LETTERSHOULD BE UNSEALED, AND THE INFORMATION ANDEVIDENCE THEREIN SHOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL

BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT AND EXCULPATORY, THEREBYESTABLISHING A COMPELLING NEED FOR UNSEALING

In its November 21, 2014, letter to the Court, and subsequently provided to defense

counsel December 3, 2014, the government disclosed an ongoing investigation of Carl Force, a

former Special Agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). The investigation

has thus far revealed that former SA Force allegedly used his position as a DEA agent for self-

gain by leaking investigative information to the operator of Silk Road in exchange for payment,

and hijacking a cooperating witness’s Silk Road account to obtain $350,000 in Bitcoins.

The government submitted its letter, and provided a copy to defense counsel, pursuant to

Rule 6(e), Fed.R.Crim.P., and sought and obtained in that context an Order, dated December 3,

2104, maintaining under seal the letter and the information provided therein.

However, for the reasons set forth below, and in the ex parte letter provided

contemporaneously with theses motions, it is respectfully submitted that the information in the

government’s November 21, 2014, letter, is exculpatory, and should therefore be unsealed,

available to the defense to perform a complete investigation, and admissible at trial.

A. The Government’s November 21, 2014, Letter

In its November 21, 2014, letter, at 1, the government informed the Court that former SA

Force “is the undercover agent whom Ulbricht allegedly hired to arrange the murder-for-hire, as

described in that indictment[,]” and that former SA Force “is now being investigated by USAO-

San Francisco for, among other things, leaking information about USAO-Baltimore’s

25



16/121

investigation to Ulbricht in exchange for payment, and otherwise corruptly obtaining proceeds

from the Silk Road website and converting them to his personal use.”

The government’s letter, at 2, adds that “USAO San Francisco first began investigation

former SA Force in the Spring of 2014[,]” yet the information about the investigation was not

disclosed to the defense in this case until December 3, 2014, essentially one month prior to trial.

The government, in its letter, at 1, claims that it “does not believe that the ongoing investigation

of SA Force is in any way exculpatory as to Ulbricht or otherwise material to his defense[,]”

it has now disclosed the information “in an abundance of caution[.]”

However, that is simply a tacit admission that the government itself recognizes the

potentially exculpatory value of the information, even if it not capable of articulating it either to

the Court or even itself [and that continued withholding of the information would be contrary to

the government’s obligations under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963)]. Nevertheless, as

detailed in the accompanying ex parte letter, the relevant and exculpatory character of the

information is abundantly clear to defense counsel.

Also, while the government, in its letter, at 1, asserts that former SA Force “played no

role” in SDNY’s investigation of Silk Road, the connection is obvious and inescapable from the

fact that the government, in its letter, at 2, admits that SDNY “has been assisting USAO-San

Francisco with its investigation, by sharing relevant evidence collected from this Office’s

investigation of Silk Road, including evidence from the server used to host the Silk Road website

(the “Silk Road Server”) and evidence from Ulbricht’s laptop computer.”

26



17/121

B. The Principles Applicable to Exculpatory Material and Information

Given the nature of former SA Force’s alleged misconduct during the investigation of the

Silk Road web site, evidence related to that investigation must be unsealed and disclosed to the

defense in order to afford Mr. Ulbricht Due Process and satisfy Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83

(1963), and its progeny.

Brady and a series of subsequent cases impose an affirmative duty on the government to

disclose all evidence which is material and favorable to the defendant, either because it is

exculpatory or as impeachment material, in compliance with the due process clause of the Fifth

Amendment. Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (“evidence is material either to guilt or

punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution”); see also Giglio v.

United States , 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) (if the reliability of a witness “‘may well be

determinative of guilt or innocence,’ nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within

this general rule” of disclosure).

Contrary to the government’s claims, the evidence is both material and potentially

exculpatory, and consequently must be disclosed under Brady . Furthermore, the due process

right to Brady material in a manner that allows effective use of exculpatory evidence, certainly

establishes a compelling and particularized need to modify the protective order to permit a

defense investigation, as well as use of admissible evidence at trial. See e.g., Martindell v. Int'l

Tel. & Tel. Corp ., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979); see also Dennis v. United States , 384 U.S.

855, 868 (1966).

27



18/121

C. Evidence Related to the Investigation of Misconduct by Former SA Force During the Silk Road Investigation Is Both Material and Favorable to Mr. Ulbricht

In the retrospective context, evidence must be disclosed pursuant to Brady when there is

a “reasonable probability . . . that the outcome would have been different if disclosure had been

made.” United States v. Coppa , 267 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2001). A reasonable probability of a

different outcome “is not a sufficiency of evidence test,” and thus, does not require that the

“evidence would have rendered the evidence as a whole insufficient to support a conviction.”

United States v. Payne , 63 F.3d 1200, 1209 (2d Cir. 1995), quoting Kyles , 514 U.S. at 435.

Rather, evidence which must be disclosed is that which “could reasonably [have been]

taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.”

United States v. Coppa , 267 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2001), quoting Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S.

419, 435 (1995). As the Second Circuit has held, even when evidence may be both inculpatory

and exculpatory, its disclosure is not thus precluded under Brady . See United States v. Mahaffy ,

693 F.3d 113, 130 (2d Cir. 2012) (“[t]he fact that the government is able to argue that portions of

the transcripts were consistent with the prosecution’s theory fails to lessen the exculpatory force”

of the remaining parts); see also United States v. Rivas , 377 F.3d 195, 199-200 (2d Cir. 2004).

Here, though, in the pretrial context, as discussed post , disclosure has a broader context.

Thus, when the “exculpatory character harmonize[s] with the theory of the defense case” failure

to disclose that evidence constitutes a Brady violation. Id ., quoting United State v. Triumph

Capital Grp. , 544 F.3d 149, 164 (2d Cir. 2008). That harmony with defense theories is detailed

in the accompanying ex parte letter.

28



19/121

D. The Evidence Related to the Investigation of Former SA ForceShould Be Unsealed Because It Constitutes Brady Material, Thus

Providing a Compelling and Particularized Need for Its Disclosure

The timeliness requirement incorporated in the Brady disclosure obligation compels

disclosure of materially favorable evidence in sufficient time to permit the defense the

opportunity to use it effectively before trial. Coppa , 267 F.3d at 142 (whether the disclosure is

made in a timely fashion depends on the “sufficiency, under the circumstances, of the defense’s

opportunity to use the evidence when disclosure is made”); see also United States v.

Solomonyan , 451 F.Supp.2d 626, 644-645 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Thus, implicit in the government’s Brady obligation is the requirement that the defense is

able to use the materially favorable evidence, even if only to uncover additional exculpatory

evidence. See e.g. United States v. Gil , 297 F.3d 93, 104 (2d Cir. 2002) (materially favorable

evidence, even if not admissible itself, must be disclosed pursuant to Brady if it “could lead to

admissible evidence”). Indeed, in Gil , the inclusion of critical exculpatory (and impeachment)

information in boxes of documents produced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3500 the weekend prior to

trial was deemed insufficient notice. Id ., at 106-07.

Consequently, although the interests in maintaining grand jury secrecy are certainly

stronger while an investigation is ongoing, unsealing is necessary here because evidence of an

investigation of former SA Force is exculpatory, and thus Brady material, disclosure of which is

necessary to avoid “a possible injustice.” See generally Douglas Oil Co. Of California v. Petrol

Stops Northwest , 441 U.S. 211 (1979) (requiring a showing that “material [sought] is needed to

avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, that the need for disclosure is greater

than the need for continued secrecy, and that their request is structured to cover only material so

29



20/121

needed”). Certainly, the right to pre-trial access to Brady material presents a particularized

and/or compelling need for its unsealing and disclosure. See e.g. United States v. Youngblood ,

379 F.2d 365, 367 (2d Cir. 1967); see also Dennis , 384 U.S. at 868-70 (“disclosure, rather than

suppression, of relevant materials ordinarily promotes the proper administration of criminal

justice”).

In that regard, in a pretrial rather than appellate context – with the latter involving post

hoc considerations of materiality and harmless error – it is respectfully submitted that Dennis

compels pretrial disclosure in this case to promote a fair trial for Mr. Ulbricht, and afford him

Due Process. See also Kathleen Ridolfi, Tiffany M. Joslyn, and Todd H. Fries, Material

Indifference: How Courts Are Impeding Fair Disclosure In Criminal Cases , National

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and The Veritas Initiative (Santa Clara University

School of Law), November 17, 2014. 6

Accordingly, Mr. Ulbricht’s due process right to exculpatory evidence under Brady

warrants unsealing, and admitting at trial, evidence related to the improper conduct alleged

against former SA Force in the government’s November 21, 2014, letter.

6 The Executive Summary of the NACDL/Veritas Report laments that

[a]cross the nation prosecutors are guiding their disclosureobligations by a post-trial standard that some courts have decried as unworkable in the pre-trial context. Prosecutors are ill-equipped to apply a post-trial standard to a pre-trial obligation without the

benefit of the defense perspective and with their natural biases aszealous advocates. Taking their cues from the courts, prosecutorsare acting to the detriment of the defense and fair process.

NACDL/Veritas Report, at xv (Executive Summary).

30



21/121


------------------------------------------------------------------------)


-v-

ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT,Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------)

KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:

USDCSDNYDOCUMENTELECTRONICALLY FILEDDOC :DATE FILED: DE 2 2014

14 Cr. 68 KBF)

SEALED ORDER

A conference in this matter is scheduled for Monday, December 15, 2014 a t 10:00

a.m. In advance of that conference and not later than 9:00 a.m. that day, the

Government shall respond, by letter, to the following:

1. Is the fact of or any aspect of the Government's investigation of Carl Force

public or otherwise known to persons or entities outside of the grand jury, the

investigators directly involved in that case or any cases involving Mr.

Ulbricht?

2. Does Mr. Force know he is under investigation?

3. f he fact of the investigation is not publicly known, what if any) harm

would the Government suffer if it became known?

4. What's the status of the investigation?



22/121

5 Would the Government be able to reveal any of the facts regarding Mr.

Force s conduct without endangering the grand jury investigation? f so,

which ones? f no facts are known, why not?

Dated:

SO ORDERED:

New York, New YorkDecember I l...;2014

rT S ~

KATHERINE B FORRESTUnited States istrict Judge



23/121



24/121



25/121

Thoward1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

-v.- : S1 14 Cr. 68 (KBF)

ROSS ULBRICHT, :a/k/a “Dread Pirate Roberts,”a/k/a “DPR,” :a/k/a “Silk Road,”

:Defendant.

:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITIONTO THE DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

PREET BHARARAUnited States AttorneySouthern District of New YorkAttorney for the United States of America

TIMOTHY T. HOWARDSERRIN TURNER

Assistant United States AttorneysOf Counsel



26/121

14

flight, where there was no other evidence that defendant had become a fugitive). Nor is there

any evidence of some other unrelated criminal conduct in which Ulbricht was engaged that could

explain his conduct. Cf . United States v. Diallo , 461 Fed. Appx. 27, 30 (2d Cir. 2012)

(considering, and rejecting, argument that admission of flight evidence was improper because

defendant's flight could be explained by fact that he was trafficking in illegal cigarettes, rather

than committing robberies).

Finally, as asserted previously, the Court should not exclude evidence of the false

identification documents under Rule 403. ( Id . at 18-19). The evidence regarding Ulbricht’s

attempts to obtain fraudulent identification documents is highly probative, and his attempts toobtain nine fake identification documents on a single occasion are not any more “sensational or

disturbing” than the scope of the alleged offenses in this case, which include a large-scale

narcotics trafficking conspiracy, among other things, such that there would be any legitimate risk

that the evidence will “arouse irrational passions” among the jurors. ( Id . at 19).

V. THE DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO UNSEAL INFORMATIONREGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF DEA SPECIAL AGENT CARLFORCE AND TO ADMIT THAT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL SHOULD BEREJECTED

The defendant seeks to unseal evidence regarding an ongoing investigation into a former

Special Agent (“SA”) with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), named Carl Force,

and to use that evidence affirmatively at trial. As set forth below, the defendant’s request should

be rejected, for many reasons, including because the evidence is irrelevant and inflammatory and

because there is no sound, particularized need to disclose the evidence that outweighs the interest

in protecting the secrecy and integrity of the ongoing grand jury investigation.



27/121

15

A. Facts

By letter dated November 21, 2014, the Government sent an ex parte letter to the Court,

which provided details regarding an ongoing grand jury investigation into SA Carl Force being

conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California (“USAO-San

Francisco”), in conjunction with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the

Department of Justice (the “Force Letter”). The Force Letter requested leave to disclose the

contents of the letter to defense counsel pursuant to Rule 6(e)(3)(E), accompanied by a protective

order prohibiting the disclosure of the Force Letter and the existence of the USAO-San Francisco

investigation of SA Force outside the defense team. The Court granted that request on December1, 2014, and the Force Letter was provided to counsel for the defendant later that same day.

As set forth in the Force Letter, SA Force participated in an unrelated investigation of

Silk Road coordinated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland (“USAO-

Baltimore”). The Government has not relied on and is not offering any evidence obtained by

that investigation in this case. USAO-San Francisco is investigating allegations that SA Force

has converted hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of Bitcoins into U.S. currency and

deposited them into his personal accounts. With respect to SA Force’s involvement in the

USAO-Baltimore investigation of Silk Road, USAO-San Francisco is investigating whether SA

Force may have: (1) leaked or offered to leak investigative information to Ulbricht regarding the

USAO-Baltimore investigation in exchange for payments from Ulbricht; (2) used access to the

Curtis Green (“Flush”) account to steal approximately $350,000 worth of Bitcoins from Silk

Road; and (3) received two payments totaling approximately $85,000 worth of Bitcoins, which

were undocumented and converted for personal use. (Force Letter at 2-5).

B. Discussion



28/121

16

As set forth in the Force Letter, SA Force did not play any role in this investigation, the

Government does not intend to call SA Force at trial, and the Government is not using any

evidence obtained in the USAO-Baltimore investigation in this case. 2 Accordingly, the facts

underlying the ongoing grand jury investigation of SA Force does not constitute impeachment

material for which disclosure would be required under Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150

(1972). (Force Letter at 5). Nor do those facts exculpate Ulbricht in any manner, or otherwise

aid the defense. ( Id. ).

As a threshold matter, the grand jury investigation into whether SA Force was involved

in leaking sensitive law enforcement investigation information to the defendant, and that he mayhave converted Bitcoins provided to him by the defendant, do not exculpate Ulbricht in any way,

and is not helpful to the defense. (Force Letter at 5). Even if substantiated, such evidence is

plainly inculpatory, as Ulbricht’s attempts to gather counterintelligence on law enforcement

efforts is probative of his knowledge and his attempts to protect his illegal enterprise. ( Id. ).

Similarly, the fact that SA Force may have converted Bitcoins obtained from Ulbricht for his

personal use would, if true, reflect only corruption on SA Force’s part, and would not be relevant

to the question of Ulbricht’s guilt. ( Id .).

The Government’s case against Ulbricht is completely independent of evidence gathered

by SA Force, and the only reference to “Nob” that the Government intends to make in its case in

chief are chats where the defendant and other co-conspirators mention him as the party solicited

2 Nor does the Government intend to use at trial any communications between Ulbricht and SAForce that were found on the Silk Road Server and Ulbricht’s laptop – even though thesecommunications include highly incriminating exchanges reflecting Ulbricht’s hiring of “nob” toarrange the murder of Curtis Green. (Force Letter at 6). As discussed in the Government’smotions in limine, the Government seeks to offer other evidence of the attempted murder for hireof Green, through communications that the defendant had with co-conspirators “Inigo” and“cimon” regarding the murder for hire. (Gov. Mot. at 6-7).



29/121

17

by the defendant to arrange for the murder of Curtis Green, a/k/a “Flush.” Regardless of whether

SA Force, Green or anyone else stole the Bitcoins, the identity of the culprit is wholly irrelevant

to the fact that the defendant believed that they were stolen by his employee, “Flush.” Upon

learning that “Flush” had been recently arrested, and fearing that he was cooperating with law

enforcement, Ulbricht made the conscious decision to seek to murder “Flush,” in order to protect

his interests in his underground black market website and the illegal proceeds it generated. Even

assuming that the grand jury’s investigation concludes that SA Force was responsible for stealing

the Bitcoins, that collateral fact is not exculpatory as to Ulbricht, as it does not detract from his

criminal intent in ordering the murder for hire.The Government understands that the defendant has filed an ex parte letter seeking

authority to admit evidence pertaining to the Force investigation at trial. Because it was

submitted ex parte , the Government is not in a position to respond. Counsel for the defendant

has previously suggested in conversations with counsel for the Government that evidence of the

Force investigation might be helpful to support an entrapment defense, but any such argument

lacks merit. The allegations against SA Force do not tend to prove either of the essential

elements of an entrapment defense, including: (1) government inducement of the crime and (2) a

lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in criminal conduct. See United

States v. Kopstein , 759 F.3d 168, 173 (2d Cir. 2014). Even if SA Force is found to have stolen

the Bitcoins, he at most caused a situation to which the defendant chose to respond to with

violence, which is wholly insufficient to prove an entrapment defense. United States v.

Cromitie , 727 F.3d 194, 204 (2d Cir. 2013) (“The fact that officers or employees of the

Government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not

defeat the prosecution.”). Chat logs obtained from the defendant’s computer plainly indicate that



30/121

18

“Nob” (i.e., SA Force), did not induce Ulbricht’s decision to order “Flush” killed; rather, the

decision to solicit “Flush’s” murder originated from the defendant himself, during conversations

he had with co-conspirators “cimon” and “Inigo.” 3

In addition to not being aware of any evidence regarding SA Force’s potential theft and

conversion of Bitcoins that would be exculpatory to the defense, the Government has consulted

with the lead Assistant U.S. Attorney in USAO-San Francisco handling the SA Force

investigation, who has also confirmed their position that USAO-San Francisco is unaware of any

such evidence. The compelling interests in preserving the integrity of the grand jury’s ongoing

investigation simply cannot be overcome by purely speculative and conclusory assertions thatotherwise irrelevant and law enforcement sensitive information is exculpatory. Accordingly, the

Court should deny the defendant’s application to unseal the ongoing grand jury investigation and

reject the defendant’s application to disclose any evidence concerning that investigation at trial.

3 Relevant excerpts of the chat logs reflecting discussions between the defendant, SA Forceas “Nob,” “Inigo,” and “cimon” regarding Flush are attached as Exhibit A. Those chat logsindicate that: (1) “Inigo” first discovered the theft of the Bitcoins via the “Flush” account andreported it to Ulbricht, and Ulbricht reported the theft to Nob (pp. 1-2); (2) Ulbricht identified“Flush” to “Nob” as Curtis Green and asked if he could arrange to “get someone to force him toreturn the stolen funds” (p. 5); (3) “Nob” replied by asking in an open-ended fashion whetherUlbricht wanted him “beat up, shot, just paid a visit,” and the defendant responded at the time byinstructing “Nob” to arrange to have Green “beat up” (p. 5); (4) “cimon” initiated a discussionwith Ulbricht about whether they should consider executing Green, and Ulbricht eventuallyagreed (pp. 11-13); (5) the very next time that Ulbricht spoke with Nob, Ulbricht, unprompted,requested that Nob change the order from “torture to execute,” even after Nob told Ulbricht that

beating Green up would not cost Ulbricht anything, but that Ulbricht would have to pay for amurder for hire (pp. 18-20); and (6) Nob quoted a price of $80,000 in United States currency forthe hit, to which Ulbricht agreed (p. 21). As noted in the Force Letter, the Government does notintend to use the portions of the chat logs involving Nob at trial, even though the logs are highlyinculpatory.



31/121

1

EXHIBIT A

Compilation of Torchat Logs Seized from Ulbricht Laptop ReflectingCommunications with SA Force (“Nob”), “Inigo” and “Cimon”

Between January 26, 2013 at 3:39 a.m. and January 29, 2013 at 12:49 p.m. 1

( 2013- 01- 26 03: 39) i ni go ( l apt op) : [ del ayed] i hope you get onl i ne soon.we ar e under at t ack over 100k st ol en, shi t s hi t t i ng t he f an you need t opul l t he pl ug on wi t hdr awal s[ del ayed] over 300k stol en. i t hi nk i f i gur ed out how t o cont ai n i t .[ del ayed] as f ar as I can t el l i t was f l ush, and he managed t o st eal al i t t l e over $350k[ del ayed] ei t her t hat or somebody wi t h access t o hi s account[ del ayed] but my hunch i s t hat i t was hi m.[ del ayed] f or t unat el y i was abl e t o st op i t bef or e i t got any f ur t her[ del ayed] l ooks l i ke he t ook 900bi t coi ns f r om t he pet t y cash f und, and t her est by changi ng vendor s passwor ds and r eset t i ng t hei r pi ns, and t hen

l oggi ng i nt o thei r account s t o wi pe out t hei r bal ances[ del ayed] i ve been up al l ni ght f r ant i cal l y tr yi ng t o st op t hi s massi vet hef t , i need t o cat ch a f ew zzz' s[ del ayed] i l l be back on i n a f ew hour s. hopef ul l y i n t i me t o see you getonl i ne( 2013- 01- 26 03: 41) mysel f : you t here?( 2013- 01- 26 04: 47) mysel f : yea, t hi s makes me si ck t o my st omache. Idecr ypt ed hi s I D and di d some di ggi ng. He was ar r est ed f or cocai neposessi on l ast week. I t hi nk t hi s st uf f about hi s daught er was a t al e.

Thi s wi l l be t he f i r st t i me I have had t o cal l on my muscl e. f ucki ngsucks.

( 2013- 01- 26 10: 42) Nob: [ del ayed] my f r i end you up( 2013- 01- 26 10: 43) mysel f : i am( 2013- 01- 26 10: 43) mysel f : how ar e you ami go?( 2013- 01- 26 10: 43) Nob: I ' m t i r ed D, r eal t i r ed( 2013- 01- 26 10: 44) mysel f : not enough sl eep?( 2013- 01- 26 10: 44) Nob: no I ' m wor ki ng t oo har d. overs eei ng t hr ee goodsi ze l oads comi ng f r om Sout h Ameri ca up her e i nt o U. S.( 2013- 01- 26 10: 45) mysel f : l ot s of peopl e t o coordi nat e?( 2013- 01- 26 10: 46) Nob: yes, heah i j ust saw your message on SR( 2013- 01- 26 10: 46) mysel f : yea, not a t on of money, but i t pi sses me of ft o no end. I t r ust ed t he guy t oo much( 2013- 01- 26 10: 47) Nob: ok, who i s i t and wher e i s he( 2013- 01- 26 10: 48) mysel f : i l l send you hi s I D( 2013- 01- 26 10: 48) Nob: how?( 2013- 01- 26 10: 48) mysel f : I had hi m send i t t o me when I hi r ed hi m( 2013- 01- 26 10: 48) mysel f : f or j ust t hi s ki nd of si t uat i on( 2013- 01- 26 10: 49) mysel f : he was r ecent l y ar r est ed f or cocai ne possessi onon J an 17t h

1 Torchat communications between Ulbricht and SA Force (“Nob”) are included in their entirety for this designatedtime period. Torchat ommunications between Ulbricht and “Inigo”/”Cimon” are excerpts of relvant portionsregarding the theft of Bitcoins by Curtis Green, a/k/a “Flush.”



32/121

2

( 2013- 01- 26 10: 50) Nob: t hat wasn' t t he ki l o t hat I sent was i t . becauseI ' m goi ng t o be pi ssed( 2013- 01- 26 10: 50) mysel f : di d you send i t t o UTAH?( 2013- 01- 26 10: 52) Nob: yes, i t ' s an addr ess t hat googl eyed gave t o me.and i ' m havi ng pr obl ems wi t h hi m/ her( 2013- 01- 26 10: 52) mysel f : ar e you ser i ous!

( 2013- 01- 26 10: 52) Nob: yes what t he mi er da( 2013- 01- 26 10: 52) mysel f : mi erda?( 2013- 01- 26 10: 53) Nob: what you want done? what t he f uck i s up wi t h t hegoogl eyed. i don' t need t hi s shi t( 2013- 01- 26 10: 54) Nob: and who i s t he f r i cki n i di ot ?( 2013- 01- 26 10: 54) mysel f : I ' m i ncr edi bl y sor r y nob, but t hi s guy on t heI D( 2013- 01- 26 10: 54) mysel f : he' s t he one I asked t o set you up wi t h vendor s( 2013- 01- 26 10: 55) mysel f : he must have somehow t r i cked you i nt o sendi ngt he ki l o t o hi m i nst ead of googl eyed( 2013- 01- 26 10: 55) Nob: ok what do you want done wi t h hi m?( 2013- 01- 26 10: 55) mysel f : he t hen t ook advant age of some of t he t ool s Igave hi m t o do vendor s upport t o ri p a bunch of vendors of f , who I wi l l

have t o compensat e( 2013- 01- 26 10: 56) Nob: i ' m not wor r i ed. i di dn' t send i t out . butgoogl eyed wor r i es me. you sur e he/ she i s ok?

( 2013- 01- 26 10: 56) i ni go ( l apt op) : i m back onl i ne now

( 2013- 01- 26 10: 57) mysel f : I ' m not sur e about googl eyed. t hey were l ockedout of t hei r account by t hi s guy 24 hour s ago( 2013- 01- 26 10: 57) mysel f : mor e l i ke 12 hour s ago

( 2013- 01- 26 10: 57) i ni go ( l apt op) : i f you want me t o get on a pl ane and gof i nd hi m, j ust say t he word( 2013- 01- 26 10: 57) mysel f : I have someone on i t( 2013- 01- 26 10: 57) mysel f : t hank you t hough( 2013- 01- 26 10: 57) i ni go ( l apt op) : i r eal l y wi sh i coul d have f i gur ed i tout f ast er and st opped hi m bef or e he t ook so much

( 2013- 01- 26 10: 58) mysel f : you di dn' t send t he ki l o? or ar e you t al ki ngabout a second or der ?

( 2013- 01- 26 10: 58) i ni go ( l apt op) : i not i ced i t as soon as he st ar t ed,l ucki l y, but i t t ook me a f ew hour s t o f i gur e out what was happenei ng andr eal i ze how t o st op i t( 2013- 01- 26 10: 58) mysel f : how di d you st op i t ?( 2013- 01- 26 10: 58) i ni go ( l apt op) : by r eset t i ng the passwor d t o hi saccount( 2013- 01- 26 10: 58) mysel f : oh, smar t( 2013- 01- 26 10: 58) i ni go ( l apt op) : as soon as i di d t hat t he st eal i ngst opped



33/121

3

( 2013- 01- 26 10: 59) Nob: i sent t he ki l o and G- eyed di d pay so. G- eyed i st al ki ng about doi ng a second or der f or f i ve ki l os t o the UK.( 2013- 01- 26 10: 59) mysel f : you sent one ki l o t o t he ut ah addr ess?

( 2013- 01- 26 10: 59) i ni go ( l apt op) : i was wat chi ng t he bi t coi n addr ess t hathe was sendi ng al l t he coi ns t o( 2013- 01- 26 10: 59) i ni go ( l apt op) : 20000 bt c by t he t i me i cut of f hi sadmi n access( 2013- 01- 26 10: 59) mysel f : I even had t he t hought t hat I was put t i ng t oomuch t r ust i n you guys and shoul d gi ve one pi n r eset power and t he ot herpass r eset power( 2013- 01- 26 10: 59) i ni go ( l apt op) : t hat woul d have been a good i dea( 2013- 01- 26 11: 00) i ni go ( l apt op) : i wi sh i had a ki l l swi t ch( 2013- 01- 26 11: 00) i ni go ( l apt op) : f or t he si t e( 2013- 01- 26 11: 00) i ni go (l apt op) : or f or wi t hdr awal s at l east( 2013- 01- 26 11: 00) mysel f : wi t hdr awal s at l east( 2013- 01- 26 11: 00) i ni go ( l apt op) : i coul d have st opped i t at under $60k

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 00) mysel f : yea, a w/ d ki l l swi t ch i s a good i dea( 2013- 01- 26 11: 00) i ni go ( l apt op) : i m sor r y i t got so f ar . but i hat e t ot hi nk how much mor e he coul d have st ol en( 2013- 01- 26 11: 01) i ni go ( l apt op) : i j ust wi sh i coul d have been f ast er( 2013- 01- 26 11: 02) i ni go (l apt op) : 350k i s a l ot of money. i t wi l l t akehi m a whi l e t o cash i t al l out . i f we can f i nd hi m f i r st maybe somet hi ngcan be done

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 03) Nob: yes a ut ah addr ess, but l i ke i sai d; i di dn' t sendi t so i ' l l have t o reach out and get t he exact addr ess( 2013- 01- 26 11: 03) mysel f : l et me see i f I under st and. . .( 2013- 01- 26 11: 04) Nob: i had my peopl e send i t . i never t ouch t he dope

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 04) mysel f : you sent a ki l o t o geyed, whi ch he r ecei ved.wher e di d you send t hat one? who asked f or t he ki l o t o ut ah?

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 04) i ni go ( l apt op) : i t was sheer l uck t hat i not i ced i t , ihad sent my coi ns t o sugar mama t o cash out my paycheck, and i keptl ooki ng her up t o see i f she was back onl i ne because i m f l at br oke and wasr eal l y ant sy f or her t o send me t he MP codes ( whi ch she st i l l hasnt donet hanks t o t hi s mess) and t hen i not i ced her bal ance dr op t o 0, and shemade a f or um post about i t

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 05) Nob: googl eyed gave me an addr ess i n ut ah t o send t heki l o. googl eyed r equest ed t hat t he ki l o go t o ut ah.

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 05) i ni go ( l apt op) : so i st ar t ed t o i nvest i gat e, sear chedt he bi t coi n addr ess t hat her coi ns wer e wi t hdr awn t o, and not i ced t hat 4t op vendor s had wi t hdr awn t o t he same addr ess( 2013- 01- 26 11: 05) i ni go ( l apt op) : about 1000 bi t coi ns f r om each



34/121

4

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 06) Nob: g- eyed sai d she got i t t hat i s why she f i nal i zed,but he/ she i sn' t l eavi ng f eedback on SR whi ch i s pi ssi ng me of f

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 06) i ni go ( l apt op) : t hen i st ar t ed t al ki ng wi t h sugar mamaand f i gur ed out t hat her pi n and pass had been r eset , and t hat l ed me t o

r eal i ze i t was someone wi t h admi n access and not a vi r us or mal i cous code( 2013- 01- 26 11: 06) i ni go ( l apt op) : so t hen i j ust t hought t he best shot ihad t o st op i t was r eset f l ush' s password( 2013- 01- 26 11: 06) i ni go ( l apt op) : cut of f hi s admi n access

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 07) mysel f : wher e was t he f i r st ki l o sent ?( 2013- 01- 26 11: 07) mysel f : was i t i r el and?( 2013- 01- 26 11: 07) Nob: t o ut ah( 2013- 01- 26 11: 07) mysel f : do you have t he exact addr ess?( 2013- 01- 26 11: 07) Nob: next f i ve ki l os ar e supposed t o go t o i r el and( 2013- 01- 26 11: 07) mysel f : does i t mat ch t he i d?( 2013- 01- 26 11: 08) mysel f : ok, don' t send t hem unt i l I get t o the bot t om

of t hi s( 2013- 01- 26 11: 08) Nob: i have t o cal l back t o my guy who sent t he ki l of or me

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 08) i ni go ( l apt op) : by t hen hi s addr ess had r acked up 20kbt c( 2013- 01- 26 11: 09) i ni go (l apt op) : al so, what r eal l y l ed me to t hi nki ng i twas hi m, was t he f act t hat seal swi t hcl ubs got ddos' d yest erday( 2013- 01- 26 11: 09) i ni go ( l apt op) : and was hel d at r ansom( 2013- 01- 26 11: 09) mysel f : oh damn( 2013- 01- 26 11: 09) i ni go ( l apt op) : and t her es onl y one per son i know wi t ht i es t o SR and seal swi t hcl ubs

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 09) mysel f : what sl eaze( 2013- 01- 26 11: 09) i ni go ( l apt op) : f l ush t ol d me t hat he knew t he ownerr eal l y wel l( 2013- 01- 26 11: 09) mysel f : he t ol d me t hat t oo( 2013- 01- 26 11: 09) i ni go ( l apt op) : yeah so he must have or gani zed anat t ack on hi s si t e as wel l

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 10) Nob: yes, i need you t o l et me know what i s goi ng on

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 10) i ni go ( l apt op) : some desper at e at t empt t o get as muchas he coul d i n one day( 2013- 01- 26 11: 10) i ni go ( l apt op) : f ucki ng scumbag( 2013- 01- 26 11: 10) mysel f : so, I have a f r i end t hat smuggl es her oi n f orcar t el s. I ' m chat t i ng wi t h hi m now. he has muscl e ever ywher e and wi l lget t o hi m qui ckl y.

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 11) mysel f : I wi l l . what do you want t o do about Cur t i s



35/121

5

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 11) i ni go ( l apt op) : ah you must be ref er r i ng t o t he guyt hat was of f er i ng f r ee f ul l aut o AR' s wi t h hi s her oi n( 2013- 01- 26 11: 11) i ni go ( l apt op) : t he guy wi t h t i es t o FARC( 2013- 01- 26 11: 11) i ni go ( l apt op) : nob or somet hi ng l i ke t hat

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 12) mysel f : I f you can get someone t o f orce hi m t o r et ur nt he st ol en f unds, t hat woul d be amazi ng( 2013- 01- 26 11: 12) Nob: per sonal l y, I don' t want any cont act . i ' m cl ear .i f you want somet hi ng done, i can hel p you di scr eet l y

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 12) i ni go ( l apt op) : i f t hat s who your t al ki ng about , t henhe woul d seem l i ke t he per f ect per son f or t he j ob

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 13) mysel f : what do you mean?

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 13) mysel f : t hi s i s someone el se( 2013- 01- 26 11: 13) i ni go ( l apt op) : oh ok( 2013- 01- 26 11: 14) i ni go ( l apt op) : i can' t bel i eve he pul l ed t hi s. somepeopl e ar e har d t o r ead

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 15) Nob: do you want hi m beat up. shot , j ust pai d a vi si t ?

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 16) i ni go ( l apt op) : so j ust out of cur i ousi t y i pul l ed upt he messages f r om " chroni cpai n" si nce he r eveal ed t hat s who he used t o be( 2013- 01- 26 11: 16) i ni go ( l apt op) : he was l ogged i n 17 hour s ago

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 17) mysel f : I ' d l i ke hi m beat up, t hen f or ced t o send t hebi t coi ns he st ol e back. l i ke si t hi m down at hi s comput er and make hi m doi t( 2013- 01- 26 11: 17) mysel f : beat up onl y i f he doesn' t compl y I guess( 2013- 01- 26 11: 17) mysel f : not sur e how t hese t hi ngs usual l y go( 2013- 01- 26 11: 18) Nob: r emember t hat guy i n Af r i ca? you want ed me t o puta gun t o t hat guy' s head whi l e he i s l ogged on SR and t ake a pi ct ur e. youwant t hat ?( 2013- 01- 26 11: 18) mysel f : no t hanks( 2013- 01- 26 11: 18) mysel f : j ust don' t want hi m t o have t hat money( 2013- 01- 26 11: 19) Nob: ok, you j ust want hi m beat up and send you moneyback; t he guy I ' m goi ng t o send knows not hi ng about comput er s so he won' tknow whet her or not t he mar k has t he f unds or even i f he sent i t( 2013- 01- 26 11: 20) mysel f : we coul d gi ve hi m a l et t er t o gi ve cur t i s( 2013- 01- 26 11: 21) mysel f : so t he message doesn' t get mi xed up( 2013- 01- 26 11: 21) mysel f : and i f I know when he i s payi ng hi m a vi si t , Ican t el l hi m t o l og on t o t or chat t o tal k t o me whi l e your man i s t her e( 2013- 01- 26 11: 22) mysel f : so I can be l oged i n when he goes t o hi s house( 2013- 01- 26 11: 22) Nob: ok, you wr i t e t he l et t er and send i t t o me. i ' l lget t he exact addr ess where t he ki l o was sent . pl ease check i nt ogoogl eyed, t hi s doesn' t make sense t o me



36/121

6

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 23) mysel f : ok( 2013- 01- 26 11: 23) Nob: j ust f or get about googl eyed, i ' m cut t i ng t i es( 2013- 01- 26 11: 24) Nob: be back i n cont act l at er t oday or t omor r ow; st ayout of t r oubl e, i can' t l oose you now( 2013- 01- 26 11: 24) Nob: shoul d be can' t l ose you now, f r i cki n spani sh t oengl i s h bul l s hi t . . . s o t i r ed can' t t hi nk s t r ai ght

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 24) mysel f : how qui ckl y do you t hi nk you can get someoneover t her e? and what does t hat cost you? i s i t wor t h t he hassl e?( 2013- 01- 26 11: 25) Nob: not sur e. i t i s goi ng t o cost money because i t ' s

not my peopl e( 2013- 01- 26 11: 26) mysel f : ok, i f i t cost s mor e t han we can r ecover , t henobvi ousl y we shoul d not go t hr ough wi t h i t( 2013- 01- 26 11: 27) Nob: shi t , shi t , shi t ; we don' t need t hi s, one st epf orwar d, t wo st eps back( 2013- 01- 26 11: 27) mysel f : i know, i t ' s a pai n( 2013- 01- 26 11: 27) Nob: ok t al k at you( 2013- 01- 26 11: 27) mysel f : we don' t have t o do anyt hi ng i f you don' t want( 2013- 01- 26 11: 27) mysel f : t al k t o you soon( 2013- 01- 26 11: 28) Nob: ok, i ' l l l et you know

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 28) Nob: i ' m conf i dent t hat I ' m cl ear ; googl eyed on t heot her hand

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 29) i ni go ( l apt op) : wei r d( 2013- 01- 26 11: 32) i ni go ( l apt op) : f l ush has t o be an i di ot t o st eal f r omyou knowi ng t hat you know wher e he l i ves. he must be goi ng on t he r un( 2013- 01- 26 11: 32) mysel f : maybe so( 2013- 01- 26 11: 33) mysel f : i assumed t hat woul d be enough t o det er hi mf r om doi ng anyt hi ng l i ke t hi s( 2013- 01- 26 11: 33) i ni go ( l apt op) : you may need t o hi r e some pr i vat e eyest o f i nd hi m. somebody t hat s a pr o i n f i ndi ng f ugat i ves and mi ssi ng peopl e( 2013- 01- 26 11: 33) mysel f : yea

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 34) i ni go ( l apt op) : l i ke i sai d i f need be you al ways haveme at your di sposal i f you l ocat e hi m and need somebody t o go handl e i t( 2013- 01- 26 11: 35) mysel f : t hanks. I want t o go ki ck hi s ass mysel f , butl et ' s l eave i t t o t he pros( 2013- 01- 26 11: 35) i ni go ( l apt op) : k

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 46) mysel f : her e' s t he not e( 2013- 01- 26 11: 46) mysel f : Cur t i s,Send t he bi t coi ns you st ol e t o t he f ol l owi ng addr ess i mmedi at el y:1p6Qf xXEdHTFPkVPx1nFJ Xqpf i yEKXBNG

Tel l t he per son who j ust gave you t hi s not e af t er one conf i r mat i on on t hebl ockchai n.- DPR( 2013- 01- 26 11: 47) mysel f : t hen we' d have t o get t he guy t o gi ve usconf i r mat i on so we can check t he bl ockchai n.( 2013- 01- 26 11: 48) mysel f : I ' d act ual l y l i ke t o go through wi t h t hi s eveni f i t cost s mor e t han we can r ecover . I woul d l i ke t he exper i ence i n casesomet hi ng l i ke t hi s happens agai n.

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 48) mysel f : you t here?



37/121

7

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 48) i ni go ( l apt op) : yep( 2013- 01- 26 11: 49) mysel f : ok, l et ' s t ackl e t he support page unt i l we haveever yt hi ng zer oed( 2013- 01- 26 11: 49) mysel f : what ar e you wor ki ng on r i ght now?( 2013- 01- 26 11: 49) i ni go ( l apt op) : cust omer messages( 2013- 01- 26 11: 49) mysel f : ok, I ' l l do vendor messages

( 2013- 01- 26 11: 49) i ni go ( l apt op) : k( 2013- 01- 26 11: 50) Nob: ok got i t . i ' l l get back t o you wi t h addr ess andsee i f I can get a "f r i end" over t o vi si t your guy( 2013- 01- 26 11: 50) mysel f : ok( 2013- 01- 26 11: 50) mysel f : t hanks nob( 2013- 01- 26 11: 50) Nob: no pr obl em my f r i end. t e amo

( 2013- 01- 26 13: 24) mysel f : whi l e I ' m f i xi ng t hi s . . .( 2013- 01- 26 13: 24) mysel f : your wi t h me r i ght i ni go?( 2013- 01- 26 13: 24) i ni go (l apt op) : yes si r( 2013- 01- 26 13: 24) mysel f : i mean. . . l ong t er m( 2013- 01- 26 13: 25) mysel f : I don' t know what I ' m doi ng wr ong

( 2013- 01- 26 13: 25) mysel f : or i f i m doi ng anyt hi ng wr ong( 2013- 01- 26 13: 25) i ni go ( l apt op) : oh yeah absol ut el y. i swore my l oyal t yt o you( 2013- 01- 26 13: 25) i ni go ( l apt op) : and i wi l l st i ck by t hat( 2013- 01- 26 13: 25) i ni go ( l apt op) : i t ake pr i de i n my l oyal t y above al l myot her char acter i s t i cs( 2013- 01- 26 13: 26) i ni go ( l apt op) : wher e i l ack i n ot her f i el ds, you' l l atl east get your val ue out of me by havi ng somebody l oyal f or l i f e : )( 2013- 01- 26 13: 26) mysel f : t hank you( 2013- 01- 26 13: 27) i ni go ( l apt op) : you' ve gi ven me a chance at af i nanci al l y secur e f ut ur e t hat i di dn' t have bef or e. whi l e f l ush may havebeen a gr eedy scumbag, i m her e f or t he l ong run, i f anyt hi ng j ust t o showmy gr adi t ude

( 2013- 01- 26 13: 28) mysel f : maybe guys l i ke us ar e j ust r ar er t han I ' dhoped( 2013- 01- 26 13: 29) i ni go ( l apt op) : he cl ear l y di dn' t want t o wai t , andwant ed t o get r i ch qui ck. i m wi l l i ng t o put i n t he l ong hour s now and evenst uggl e a l i t t l e bi t f i nanci al l y, because i know t hat i n t he l ong r un i twi l l pay of f and i n a f ew year s i f i gur e i l l be maki ng enough t hat i wonthave t o wor r y about money( 2013- 01- 26 13: 30) i ni go ( l apt op) : [ del ayed] even i f i t s 5- 10 year s f r omnow, i see t he l ong run oppor t uni t y( 2013- 01- 26 13: 31) mysel f : t hat ' s good, so do I , obvi ousl y.( 2013- 01- 26 13: 33) i ni go ( l apt op) : i ve onl y been wi t h you f or t hr eemont hs, so i don' t expect t o have a new car and a ni ce pl ace t o l i ve andal l t hat good s t uf f j us t yet . i m wi l l i ng t o ear n i t .( 2013- 01- 26 13: 33) i ni go ( l apt op) : what ot her det ai l s di d you f i nd outabout f l ush' s ar r es t ?( 2013- 01- 26 13: 34) i ni go ( l apt op) : di d i t say how much he was caught wi t h?( 2013- 01- 26 13: 34) mysel f : I haven' t dug i nt o i t yet( 2013- 01- 26 13: 34) i ni go ( l apt op) : yeah i guess i t s pr et t y ear l y( 2013- 01- 26 13: 34) mysel f : we want t o move qui ckl y, but I gave t he whol emess over t o my guy



38/121

8

( 2013- 01- 26 13: 35) i ni go ( l apt op) : j ust t o conf i r m t hat he gave you hi sr eal I D, i was abl e t o aqui r e what i bel i eve t o be hi s i dent i t y f r om t hei nf o he r eveal ed t o me( 2013- 01- 26 13: 35) mysel f : oh r eal l y?( 2013- 01- 26 13: 35) i ni go ( l apt op) : i made hi m as Cur t i s Gr een f r om

, Ut ag

( 2013- 01- 26 13: 35) i ni go (l apt op) : ut ah( 2013- 01- 26 13: 35) mysel f : yep( 2013- 01- 26 13: 35) mysel f : how' d you manage t hat ?( 2013- 01- 26 13: 35) i ni go ( l apt op) : ok good so t hat wasn' t a f ake i d( 2013- 01- 26 13: 35) i ni go ( l apt op) : he t ol d me about t hi s websi t e t hat heowns( 2013- 01- 26 13: 36) mysel f : what i s i t ?( 2013- 01- 26 13: 36) i ni go ( l apt op) : . com( 2013- 01- 26 13: 36) i ni go (l apt op) : he was t r yi ng t o recui t me t o thi smul t i l evel mar ket i ng scam( 2013- 01- 26 13: 36) i ni go ( l apt op) : so t oday i l ooked up who owns t hat si t e( 2013- 01- 26 13: 37) mysel f : t hi s guy i s an i di ot( 2013- 01- 26 13: 37) i ni go ( l apt op) : he al so owns a company cal l ed anyt i me

ai r por t shut t l e or somet hi ng l i ke t hat( 2013- 01- 26 13: 37) i ni go ( l apt op) : yeah( 2013- 01- 26 13: 37) i ni go ( l apt op) : i f ound hi s t wi t t er account t oo( 2013- 01- 26 13: 37) i ni go ( l apt op) : had a pi ct ur e of t he SR l ogo as hi spr of i l e pi c( 2013- 01- 26 13: 37) i ni go ( l apt op) : i coul dn' t bel i eve i t( 2013- 01- 26 13: 38) i ni go ( l apt op) : hasn' t made an updat e si nce j an 5t h t ho( 2013- 01- 26 13: 39) mysel f : what ' s t he name of t he t wi t t er account ?( 2013- 01- 26 13: 39) i ni go ( l apt op) : one sec( 2013- 01- 26 13: 39) i ni go ( l apt op) : ht t ps: / / t wi t t er . com/( 2013- 01- 26 13: 40) i ni go ( l apt op) : t hat t wi t t er page al so l i nks t o hi sdads char i t y' s websi t e t hat he manages( 2013- 01- 26 13: 40) i ni go ( l apt op) : . com

( 2013- 01- 26 13: 40) mysel f : t he mor e you can gi ve me t he bet t er( 2013- 01- 26 13: 40) i ni go ( l apt op) : he f r equent s poker t our nys i n vegas( 2013- 01- 26 13: 42) i ni go ( l apt op) : he owns t he emai l addr essi ndol or 12@yahoo. com( 2013- 01- 26 13: 43) i ni go ( l apt op) : al t hough i coul dn' t f i nd a r ecor d oft hat emai l anywher e onl i ne( 2013- 01- 26 13: 43) i ni go ( l apt op) : seemed t o be a dead end l ead( 2013- 01- 26 13: 43) i ni go ( l apt op) : i dk what t he addr ess on hi s I D i s, buti have hi m at( 2013- 01- 26 13: 44) mysel f : t hat ' s t he same( 2013- 01- 26 13: 45) i ni go ( l apt op) : i al so have t wo pr evi ous addr essesassoci at ed wi t h hi s name:

( 2013- 01- 26 13: 46) i ni go ( l apt op) : her e' s hi s amazon wi shl i st :ht t p: / / www. amazon. com/ gp/ r egi st r y/ r egi st r y. ht ml ?i e=

( 2013- 01- 26 13: 46) i ni go ( l apt op) : l ol



39/121

9

( 2013- 01- 26 13: 47) i ni go ( l apt op) : i t hi nk hi s daught er ' s name i sand hi s wi f e' s name i s( 2013- 01- 26 13: 47) mysel f : how do you know t hat ?( 2013- 01- 26 13: 47) i ni go ( l apt op) :( 2013- 01- 26 13: 47) i ni go ( l apt op) : i have a subscr i pt i on( 2013- 01- 26 13: 47) mysel f : what s t hat ?

( 2013- 01- 26 13: 47) i ni go ( l apt op) : f or s i t uai t ons l i ke t hi s( 2013- 01- 26 13: 48) i ni go ( l apt op) : i t s a websi t e t hat pul l s up i nf o onpeopl e( 2013- 01- 26 13: 48) mysel f : oh ok( 2013- 01- 26 13: 48) i ni go ( l apt op) : pr evi ous addr esses, r el at i ves( 2013- 01- 26 13: 48) i ni go ( l apt op) : et c( 2013- 01- 26 13: 51) i ni go ( l apt op) : my gr andpar ent s on my dads si de l i ve i nvegas, t hey' r e bot h i n t hei r 90' s l i vi ng on t hei r own wi t h l ot s of heal t hpr obl ems, i f he t ur ns up at some poker t our ny out t her e i coul d ki l l t wobi r ds wi t h one st one by vi si t i ng t hem and doi ng some r econossai nce mi ssi onon our f r i end cur t i s her e l ol . j ust keep t hat i n mi nd i n case t heoppor t uni t y ar r i ses( 2013- 01- 26 16: 36) mysel f : be on t he l ook out f or vendor s s cr ewed by f l ush

t r yi ng t o get back i n( 2013- 01- 26 16: 36) mysel f : t hose ones i ment i oned bef or e( 2013- 01- 26 16: 36) i ni go (l apt op) : wi l l do( 2013- 01- 26 16: 37) i ni go ( l apt op) : i f ound t he account t hat he was sendi ngt he passwor d r eset s t o l ast ni ght . i dont know i f t hat hel ps, but i t gaveme a l i st of al l t he vendor s he scr ewed( 2013- 01- 26 16: 37) i ni go ( l apt op) : i guess you have t hat s ame l i st t ho( 2013- 01- 26 16: 37) mysel f : yea, I dug t hr ough al l t hat as wel l( 2013- 01- 26 16: 38) i ni go (l apt op) : ok

( 2013- 01- 26 20: 00) ci mon: Hey t her e, sexy man. Come i n, wel come, buy me adr i nk.

( 2013- 01- 26 20: 37) mysel f : [ del ayed] sup sup( 2013- 01- 26 20: 38) mysel f : [ del ayed] oops mi ssed ya. had a l i t t l e mi shapt oday I need t o run by you. had a csr go rogue and r i p me of f f or $350k( 2013- 01- 26 20: 38) mysel f : [ del ayed messages have been sent ]( 2013- 01- 27 00: 42) mysel f : hey, you ar ound?( 2013- 01- 27 00: 43) ci mon: yes, gi ve me 5 mi ns f i r st( 2013- 01- 27 00: 43) mysel f : no r ush( 2013- 01- 27 00: 47) ci mon: OK. Howdy, doodi e.( 2013- 01- 27 00: 47) ci mon: 350k, eh( 2013- 01- 27 00: 47) ci mon: f ucker( 2013- 01- 27 00: 48) mysel f : yea, I di dn' t expect hi m t o do i t because Ihave hi s i d( 2013- 01- 27 00: 48) ci mon: REALLY( 2013- 01- 27 00: 48) mysel f : but I l ef t mysel f open t o i t( 2013- 01- 27 00: 48) ci mon: wel l , t el l me a t al e Uncl e Rober t( 2013- 01- 27 00: 48) mysel f : gave hi m pi n and passwor d r eset capabi l i t i es.i t was dumb( 2013- 01- 27 00: 48) ci mon: ahh - I f ol l ow( 2013- 01- 27 00: 49) ci mon: enough about t he t hef t , t el l me about t he or gandonor( 2013- 01- 27 00: 49) mysel f : I even t hough I shoul dn' t , but t hen I t hought ,si nce i have t he i d, he' d never do i t



40/121

10

( 2013- 01- 27 00: 49) mysel f : and he di d( 2013- 01- 27 00: 49) mysel f : you wanna see hi s i d?( 2013- 01- 27 00: 49) ci mon: How sur e ar e you i t ' s r eal l y hi s I D

( 2013- 01- 27 00: 50) ci mon: oh yeah, I ' m gonna have a chat wi t h hi m

( 2013- 01- 27 00: 50) mysel f : pr et t y damn sur e( 2013- 01- 27 00: 50) ci mon:


41/121

11

( 2013- 01- 27 00: 59) ci mon: Oh, I have a l ong memor y, and t he t i me t o dealwi t h Cur t i s i s af t er he' s out of hi s cur r ent pr edi cament .( 2013- 01- 27 00: 59) ci mon: I ' l l get on t r acki ng hi m( 2013- 01- 27 00: 59) mysel f : says he makes 25 mi l a year( 2013- 01- 27 01: 00) mysel f : yea, but t hat money won' t l ast l ong

( 2013- 01- 27 01: 04) ci mon: Sor r y, back t o Cur t i s f or a sec. Si nce Smed i sbehi nd, i nst ead of havi ng I r i sh come out her e i n a f ew days, I can havehi m ski p t o Ut ah and see i f t hi s whol e Cur t i s t hi ng smel l s at al l . DumbI r i shmen t hat can' t use a smar t phone don' t f i t our pr of i l e, so I ' m sur ehe' d be cool .( 2013- 01- 27 01: 05) mysel f : t hat ' s f i ne wi t h me( 2013- 01- 27 01: 05) mysel f : woul d be go