Silk Road forums

Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: Tommyhawk on February 15, 2012, 01:41 pm

Title: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 15, 2012, 01:41 pm
Are there any? That we know are definitely silk road related?

I see so much hype and fear behind them, yet the only documented stories I have read in the past about 'controlled deliveries' are from people who for example: The school principle who ordered 8 LBS of weed in a single package to a education facility and his shipper didn't even bother to vacuum seal it or anything, - the package stunk.

This being said, are there any documented controlled deliveries, or attempts at them. Any news links would be nice, and if an SR user has had any person experience with one of these, please do tell.

After reading a thread about the high amount of cocaine residue on money, not to mention the volume of packages in hub centers that come into contact with one another that travel from different parts of the world....the chance of a package detected seems low depending on the area you live in, and how it is packaged.

I also read of someone in finland whos package got intercepted(On these forums), 7g of weed, yet there was no mention of how it was packaged, whether it was vac sealed or not, etc.

Please post any cases of reported controlled deliveries, or attempts, or news articles to people who have been busted for them. Lets try to really look into it and understand the true risk factor of getting busted, while taking into account flaws that senders made of the people who did get busted.

I think it is best to judge the risk and chances of controlled deliveries based on actual documented controlled deliveries and not based on speculation floating around the forums. Any LE can come up here and spread false lies to scare people away making risks seem higher than they are.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 17, 2012, 01:21 am
There is a boatload of case law on this topic.  I can't offer advice that looks to be used for the furtherance of any crime or fraud, though.  And I certainly know nothing about technology.  PM me if you'd like more advice on the legal side of things.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ChaxChax on February 17, 2012, 01:34 am
Read any of the established AAS underground boards, most are open or just require BS credentials. They are the masters of circumventing/identifying  controlled deliveries.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Magnate on February 17, 2012, 06:41 am
How can I find these underground boards?
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 17, 2012, 08:10 am
Here in the USA it's easy - just don't admit to anything.  They have no feasible way to prove you actually bought anything, and as long as you don't sign for something or somehow insinuate that you directly ordered it there are no direct legal ramifications.  It could be a mis-shipment, someone playing a joke on you, or someone sending you them to get you in trouble.  They would attempt to catch you by having an undercover deliver your package and try to get you to sign - just don't do it.  Say you aren't expecting any packages.  The authorities here know this and that is why if they find drugs they most like will just keep them and you will never here anything from it.  The most they would probably do is send you a customs form saying they intercepted a package coming to your house.  If this is the case, just ignore it. If they contact you directly just say you have no knowledge of any of this. 

tldr; they care more about the distributors than the guy who ordered 3 grams of weed.

Knowledge based on my 20 years of law practice ;o
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 17, 2012, 11:32 am
How do I find these AAS underground boards? Links please?

There is a boatload of case law on this topic.  I can't offer advice that looks to be used for the furtherance of any crime or fraud, though.  And I certainly know nothing about technology.  PM me if you'd like more advice on the legal side of things.

Uh do you realize what forums you're on?

Here in the USA it's easy - just don't admit to anything.  They have no feasible way to prove you actually bought anything, and as long as you don't sign for something or somehow insinuate that you directly ordered it there are no direct legal ramifications.  It could be a mis-shipment, someone playing a joke on you, or someone sending you them to get you in trouble.  They would attempt to catch you by having an undercover deliver your package and try to get you to sign - just don't do it.  Say you aren't expecting any packages.  The authorities here know this and that is why if they find drugs they most like will just keep them and you will never here anything from it.  The most they would probably do is send you a customs form saying they intercepted a package coming to your house.  If this is the case, just ignore it. If they contact you directly just say you have no knowledge of any of this. 

tldr; they care more about the distributors than the guy who ordered 3 grams of weed.

Knowledge based on my 20 years of law practice ;o

I don't really understand how they can 'get you' if you sign? Surely they can not use this to convinct you, perhaps to search your house to try to find drugs that you DO possess.

If I'm a normal, law abiding person, and a mail man shows up at my door asking me to sign a package that somebody has sent to me, why on earth would I not sign it? How, legally, can somebody force possession of an illegal substance on me, especially a cop/federal postal worker, coming to my door, doing his job, doing what I expect him to do, asking me to sign for a package that contains illegal contents that are not disclosed to me, that he knows contains an illegal substance. Sounds sort of like entrapment if I can be convicted for the contents of those packages, does it not???

I assume the contents of the package are just used to get in my house, and that there's no way I can actually be charged for them? The idea that one can be convincted in the above scenario sounds absolutely impossible, does it not?
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: kmfkewm on February 17, 2012, 12:45 pm
It is an absurd and fucked up situation, but they tend to use your signature as proof that you accepted the package. I have heard of cases where they don't try to get a signature during a CD and use other techniques, but very frequently they wait for you to sign before they arrest you. It at least seems like they use the signature as proof that you ordered the package. I have also heard of them pretending to be a neighbor who was delivered the package by mistake, and then asking you if it is yours and arresting you after you accept it. Of course if anyone has a neighbor ask them if this mail addressed to them is theirs, they will probably say "yes" also....
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: sourman on February 17, 2012, 01:31 pm
I've seen footage (and personal reports) of CDs where it was immediately obvious that the guy delivering the package was not your typical mailman. If the postal inspector plays the part, it can be tough to tell. However, when the cops do it, they usually wear the USPS (or UPS, whatever) uniform improperly, speak to you with an unreasonably harsh attitude, and the mail truck is nowhere to be found. If the so-called delivery person wants your signature as badly as you want what's in that package, I'd lock the door in his face and tell him I'm calling 911. Lots of push-in burglars pose as utility workers these days, you know :)

Personally, I'd never sign for anything or use DCNs, etc. unless maybe I was ordering weight. I'd leave the package sitting on the floor with "return to sender" written on it, and wouldn't open it for hours.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: cacoethes on February 17, 2012, 05:05 pm
How do I find these AAS underground boards? Links please?

There is a boatload of case law on this topic.  I can't offer advice that looks to be used for the furtherance of any crime or fraud, though.  And I certainly know nothing about technology.  PM me if you'd like more advice on the legal side of things.

Uh do you realize what forums you're on?

Here in the USA it's easy - just don't admit to anything.  They have no feasible way to prove you actually bought anything, and as long as you don't sign for something or somehow insinuate that you directly ordered it there are no direct legal ramifications.  It could be a mis-shipment, someone playing a joke on you, or someone sending you them to get you in trouble.  They would attempt to catch you by having an undercover deliver your package and try to get you to sign - just don't do it.  Say you aren't expecting any packages.  The authorities here know this and that is why if they find drugs they most like will just keep them and you will never here anything from it.  The most they would probably do is send you a customs form saying they intercepted a package coming to your house.  If this is the case, just ignore it. If they contact you directly just say you have no knowledge of any of this. 

tldr; they care more about the distributors than the guy who ordered 3 grams of weed.

Knowledge based on my 20 years of law practice ;o

I don't really understand how they can 'get you' if you sign? Surely they can not use this to convinct you, perhaps to search your house to try to find drugs that you DO possess.

If I'm a normal, law abiding person, and a mail man shows up at my door asking me to sign a package that somebody has sent to me, why on earth would I not sign it? How, legally, can somebody force possession of an illegal substance on me, especially a cop/federal postal worker, coming to my door, doing his job, doing what I expect him to do, asking me to sign for a package that contains illegal contents that are not disclosed to me, that he knows contains an illegal substance. Sounds sort of like entrapment if I can be convicted for the contents of those packages, does it not???

I assume the contents of the package are just used to get in my house, and that there's no way I can actually be charged for them? The idea that one can be convincted in the above scenario sounds absolutely impossible, does it not?

Here's how as I understand it:

The warrant to search your residence is contingent on you signing for the package.

By signing for the package, you accept responsibility for it.  Once you accept responsibility, the warrant is executed.

Once the warrant is executed, any contraband in your home can and will be used against you.

Additionally, any corroborating information found on your computer can and will be used against you.

That's how cases are built- not on one, single piece of information, but on multiple, separate pieces of information than can be tied together to show intent.

As I also understand it:

By refusing the package, the warrant can't be executed (unless you've fucked up in some other way)

Without any other corroborating information, plausible deniability is retained, and there is no case.  For this reason, I never use a DCN to track a package- it either gets here or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, then I'll let the vendor deal with checking the DCN and resolve it through Silk Road.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 17, 2012, 07:30 pm
So again, because I signed a package that a guy who looks like a mail man rang my door, tell me I have mail and ask for my signature, they get to go as far as confiscating my computer? That's pretty fucked up. What if the package was framed by your enemy and he told the cops you ordered drugs, they intercepted it and tried to do a controlled delivery.... they then go in your house and you had nothing to do with it. They just took your computer that you ran your legit home business from and as a result you went without pay and got evicted from your house and were not able to buy any food. Fucked up....
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 17, 2012, 07:43 pm
You will never have to sign for a package on here, ever.  Before you sign for a package you can obviously look at the sender/package/etc to see if it's actually yours or not. If it is a police officer they will most likely insist on you signing as quickly as possible and be forceful - not even allowing you to see the package.  Just be smart, it should seem a little odd.  As long as you aren't ordering pounds and pounds of drugs from the netherlands or some country in africa you don't really have to worry, especially if you deal with professional stealth-shippers.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: killboy on February 17, 2012, 11:16 pm
i seen that one of the venders INSISTS you use your real name and adress. They say changing a letter gives you plausible deniablilty, bs.

I will never sign for anything illegal, ever, period.  How do we not know that this individual is surely but slowly collecting signatures with the hopes of turning over the names, addys, and signatures to state officials. seems pretty logical.  Also, this particular guy reminds me of a pharmacy( i want to know how he does it), just my two cents.

im curious how many people here have actually signed for a package on here? i bet the number is high. theres a few vendors with great feedback collecting handcocks
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 18, 2012, 12:03 am
I always use my real name and address, there is no reason not to.  And if someone says they make you sign, don't buy from them.  Simple.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: killboy on February 18, 2012, 03:13 am
ron1n, that's just blatantly sketch bro.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 18, 2012, 03:19 am
Why would I want to risk losing hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars worth of merchandise?  Anyone can mail you anything, it proves nothing.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Magnate on February 18, 2012, 05:10 am
Why would I want to risk losing hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars worth of merchandise?  Anyone can mail you anything, it proves nothing.

I hope you have no other drugs or paraphernalia in your house.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 18, 2012, 05:46 am
They simply cannot get a warrant just because someone "mailed you drugs" when they can't even prove you paid for them or even wanted them.  That's why they do controlled deliveries with warrants conditional on you signing.  Read the intel around here.  I am also a law professional and know how it works in the USA, more specifically this state.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: kmfkewm on February 18, 2012, 05:59 am
They simply cannot get a warrant just because someone "mailed you drugs" when they can't even prove you paid for them or even wanted them.  That's why they do controlled deliveries with warrants conditional on you signing.  Read the intel around here.  I am also a law professional and know how it works in the USA, more specifically this state.

sure they can
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26079096/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/police-raid-md-mayors-home-kill-his-dogs/

generally they try to get you to sign, but sometimes they just storm the place with guns blazing
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 18, 2012, 06:15 am
okay okay, that may be an isolated incident.  I'm not saying be careless, i'm just saying putting your name on something isn't the end of the world... plus at least the cops around here know not to bust into a lawyer's house with no warrant haha
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: curiositymatrix on February 18, 2012, 07:09 am
okay okay, that may be an isolated incident.  I'm not saying be careless, i'm just saying putting your name on something isn't the end of the world... plus at least the cops around here know not to bust into a lawyer's house with no warrant haha

Isolated... but scary as fuck. Read the wikipedia article on it, and you start to see why some people are so paranoid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor's_residence_drug_raid

Key excerpts:
 In August 2010, Sheriff Jackson stated, “we'd do it again. Tonight.”
 Despite the criticisms, no action has been taken against the officers or their respective police departments.
 In depositions, law enforcement personnel admitted that at least one of the dogs was running away when shot.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: philio on February 18, 2012, 07:17 am
Hey folks,

I ordered from SR once - planning on doing it again sometime.  Anyways, there is a lot of debate on whether to use your real name or not.

If you don't use your real name,
-what happens if you miss the shipment and have to pick it up and they ask for ID.  If you use a fake ID you have just committed a serious crime, fraud and drugs together.
-the mail man may find it suspicious.  (I would say this isn't that big of a deal.)

I guess it depends on what your ordering.  If your getting 100 grams of coke, obviously don't use your name, and send it to a vacant house or something.

Anyways, I used my name.  I had to pick the package up at the post office and I think I had to show ID.  Best scenario is if you have a mail box in your door i guess!
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 18, 2012, 07:24 am
I always give the correct info but I never get any of the easier-detected drugs such as marijuana, and I never get large bulk orders.  If I order bulk I specifically ask for multiple shipments to be sent, possibly even spaced out.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: philio on February 18, 2012, 07:26 am
Spaced out deliveries seem bad too me man. If your gonna take a risk, all at once - incase your talking real large amounts here.

Point is, imagine you got pinched and you said .. nah this package isn't for me officer - all the while you have more packages enroute.  That would really bust balls.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 18, 2012, 07:31 am
It usually takes 2-3 days per delivery, I wait to ask them to ship the next until after I receive mine.  I don't know, i'd rather them (if somehow they caught me) be like "oh a gram of coke he must be a casual user" rather than "HOLY SHIT IT'S A KILO OF COKE SWAT TEAM NOW!"
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: philio on February 18, 2012, 07:42 am
yea i feel that.
for me to I'm always trying to think what the breaking point is before they might choose to "confiscate it" or "send in the swat"
I mean - for me if im buying 20 pills - is that really gonna be worth a swat.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 18, 2012, 08:40 am
yeah, I keep that in the back of my mind at all times  ;D
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Tommyhawk on February 18, 2012, 11:52 am
yea i feel that.
for me to I'm always trying to think what the breaking point is before they might choose to "confiscate it" or "send in the swat"
I mean - for me if im buying 20 pills - is that really gonna be worth a swat.

I think they're looking for people ordering 1000-5000+ pills. Something along the lines of that's worth sending a mission costing thousands to snatch a COULD BE drug trafficker.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 19, 2012, 05:52 am
Here in the USA it's easy - just don't admit to anything.  They have no feasible way to prove you actually bought anything, and as long as you don't sign for something or somehow insinuate that you directly ordered it there are no direct legal ramifications.  It could be a mis-shipment, someone playing a joke on you, or someone sending you them to get you in trouble.  They would attempt to catch you by having an undercover deliver your package and try to get you to sign - just don't do it.  Say you aren't expecting any packages.  The authorities here know this and that is why if they find drugs they most like will just keep them and you will never here anything from it.  The most they would probably do is send you a customs form saying they intercepted a package coming to your house.  If this is the case, just ignore it. If they contact you directly just say you have no knowledge of any of this. 

tldr; they care more about the distributors than the guy who ordered 3 grams of weed.

Knowledge based on my 20 years of law practice ;o

No lawyer would offer advice to his client that he should talk to the cops.  Even to say "I don't know."  No lawyer would ever tell his client to lie to the police.  No lawyer would suggest that his client should engage in argument with the police as to the deniable nature of the potential charge.  No lawyer would ever recommend his client answer a call from customs and then start talking.  No lawyer would ever forget to advise that the client should immediately seek legal counsel upon being contacted by law enforcement.  No lawyer would pretend modern technological tracing methods would never be used as evidence.  Saying that there is no "feasible" way to gather evidence that the person did indeed order the drugs is laughable.  Ask any of the techies on this forum and they will tell you all about modern technology's use in today's evidence gathering.  No lawyer would say that there are no "direct legal ramifications" for ordering drugs online.  What exactly do you mean by "direct legal ramifications?"  By your own argument, a person might be set up by an enemy.  If there was no legal danger in being mailed drugs, why would a prudent enemy consider doing that?  Because there are legal woes that will reach the victim.  That's why.  And finally, to suggest the above negligent advice be followed under the assumption that the client will only order a few grams of weed, compounds the carelessness of the advice.

Do not follow this person's advice.  It may have been 20 years since he/she passed the bar, but the advice offered is anything but professional.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 19, 2012, 06:32 am
Here in the USA it's easy - just don't admit to anything.  They have no feasible way to prove you actually bought anything, and as long as you don't sign for something or somehow insinuate that you directly ordered it there are no direct legal ramifications.  It could be a mis-shipment, someone playing a joke on you, or someone sending you them to get you in trouble.  They would attempt to catch you by having an undercover deliver your package and try to get you to sign - just don't do it.  Say you aren't expecting any packages.  The authorities here know this and that is why if they find drugs they most like will just keep them and you will never here anything from it.  The most they would probably do is send you a customs form saying they intercepted a package coming to your house.  If this is the case, just ignore it. If they contact you directly just say you have no knowledge of any of this. 

tldr; they care more about the distributors than the guy who ordered 3 grams of weed.

Knowledge based on my 20 years of law practice ;o

No lawyer would offer advice to his client that he should talk to the cops.  Even to say "I don't know."  No lawyer would ever tell his client to lie to the police.  No lawyer would suggest that his client should engage in argument with the police as to the deniable nature of the potential charge.  No lawyer would ever recommend his client answer a call from customs and then start talking.  No lawyer would ever forget to advise that the client should immediately seek legal counsel upon being contacted by law enforcement.  No lawyer would pretend modern technological tracing methods would never be used as evidence.  Saying that there is no "feasible" way to gather evidence that the person did indeed order the drugs is laughable.  Ask any of the techies on this forum and they will tell you all about modern technology's use in today's evidence gathering.  No lawyer would say that there are no "direct legal ramifications" for ordering drugs online.  What exactly do you mean by "direct legal ramifications?"  By your own argument, a person might be set up by an enemy.  If there was no legal danger in being mailed drugs, why would a prudent enemy consider doing that?  Because there are legal woes that will reach the victim.  That's why.  And finally, to suggest the above negligent advice be followed under the assumption that the client will only order a few grams of weed, compounds the carelessness of the advice.

Do not follow this person's advice.  It may have been 20 years since he/she passed the bar, but the advice offered is anything but professional.

When did I ever say you should talk to the cops? You shouldn't.  And you should admit everything to the cops?  When a postman comes to your door and asks you to sign for a package you should just say "OH THIS MUST BE MY CRYSTAL METH!"? I don't think so.  I said argue with the police? No, I said tell the postman you aren't expecting this package.  When did I ever say anything about a call from customs?  Are you just pulling these random things out of thin air?  Everyone here should at least have a 128-bit encryption on their computer with a hidden OS partition for plausible deniability. Did I ever say not to seek legal counsel?  I don't understand how you saying "no lawyer" folllowed by a statement I never made contradicts anything. 
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 19, 2012, 08:11 am
You're either not a lawyer, or not a very good lawyer.  First of all, I'm not going to FIRAC your entire post bit by bit.  That would take at least an hour, and create pages upon pages of (uncompensated) legal analysis.  I know it's been a while since you've been in law school, but let's recap how to engage in legal analysis, shall we?
Read one line, go back to the first issue I raised, and see if there is a piece of anything that first issue.  If not...guess what you do?  You go to your next sentence.  Read that.  See if there is a piece of the first issue which I raised.  You do that until you read every sentence, looking for a piece of every issue.  Once you find a piece of all of the issues that I raised with regard to the fact pattern (ie your public posting of horrible legal advice), you now can begin forming a counterargument.  Until you do that, you look just like your victims (people you give horrific legal advice to).  "No no no I didn't.  I don't know what your TALKING ABOUT!!! CRYSTAL METH!! I HAVE ENEMIES!! I KNOW NOTHING!!"  That's your poor client (victim) in front of the police.

I'm not even going to begin picking apart your new post lol.  You just made it far too easy to issue spot with your ALL CAPS wild ranting about crystal meth and hidden drives.  But for your careless mindless rant, you might have actually had us convinced that you were a legitimate atty.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: cacoethes on February 19, 2012, 05:38 pm
You're either not a lawyer, or not a very good lawyer.  First of all, I'm not going to FIRAC your entire post bit by bit.  That would take at least an hour, and create pages upon pages of (uncompensated) legal analysis.  I know it's been a while since you've been in law school, but let's recap how to engage in legal analysis, shall we?
Read one line, go back to the first issue I raised, and see if there is a piece of anything that first issue.  If not...guess what you do?  You go to your next sentence.  Read that.  See if there is a piece of the first issue which I raised.  You do that until you read every sentence, looking for a piece of every issue.  Once you find a piece of all of the issues that I raised with regard to the fact pattern (ie your public posting of horrible legal advice), you now can begin forming a counterargument.  Until you do that, you look just like your victims (people you give horrific legal advice to).  "No no no I didn't.  I don't know what your TALKING ABOUT!!! CRYSTAL METH!! I HAVE ENEMIES!! I KNOW NOTHING!!"  That's your poor client (victim) in front of the police.

I'm not even going to begin picking apart your new post lol.  You just made it far too easy to issue spot with your ALL CAPS wild ranting about crystal meth and hidden drives.  But for your careless mindless rant, you might have actually had us convinced that you were a legitimate atty.

There isn't any reason to pick his post apart.

All he said was to refuse the package, which certainly IS sound advice.

When he did say or imply anything else?
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: tearghoa on February 19, 2012, 07:32 pm
It is my understanding that controlled deliveries, all the rage in the 90's and early 00's are no longer favored by law enforcement. A few years ago there was a rash of random pot mailings to prosecutors, judges, politicians, and law enforcement personal that did cause some very high profile and messy controlled deliveries of the wrong people. There were also indicants of postal and package delivery employees being murdered because they were suspected of being in the process of making controlled deliveries. This made the postal/package unions very upset and has dramatically limited their corporation in these types of deals. I believe one of the unions sued to stop them in one case. I am of the understanding from very reliable sources, that a knock and talk or a major field investigation is the preferred route after a package is detected. My source who works for a top 10 US city police department says they have a policy prohibiting controlled deliveries.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 19, 2012, 08:35 pm
You're either not a lawyer, or not a very good lawyer.  First of all, I'm not going to FIRAC your entire post bit by bit.  That would take at least an hour, and create pages upon pages of (uncompensated) legal analysis.  I know it's been a while since you've been in law school, but let's recap how to engage in legal analysis, shall we?
Read one line, go back to the first issue I raised, and see if there is a piece of anything that first issue.  If not...guess what you do?  You go to your next sentence.  Read that.  See if there is a piece of the first issue which I raised.  You do that until you read every sentence, looking for a piece of every issue.  Once you find a piece of all of the issues that I raised with regard to the fact pattern (ie your public posting of horrible legal advice), you now can begin forming a counterargument.  Until you do that, you look just like your victims (people you give horrific legal advice to).  "No no no I didn't.  I don't know what your TALKING ABOUT!!! CRYSTAL METH!! I HAVE ENEMIES!! I KNOW NOTHING!!"  That's your poor client (victim) in front of the police.

I'm not even going to begin picking apart your new post lol.  You just made it far too easy to issue spot with your ALL CAPS wild ranting about crystal meth and hidden drives.  But for your careless mindless rant, you might have actually had us convinced that you were a legitimate atty.

There isn't any reason to pick his post apart.

All he said was to refuse the package, which certainly IS sound advice.

When he did say or imply anything else?

Some people just like starting flame wars  :-\  Also the first time i've seen a non-mature conversation started on these forums, sigh.

Tearghoa you have some good info there, and i'm sure everyone is happy to hear that!
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: cacoethes on February 20, 2012, 02:00 am
You're either not a lawyer, or not a very good lawyer.  First of all, I'm not going to FIRAC your entire post bit by bit.  That would take at least an hour, and create pages upon pages of (uncompensated) legal analysis.  I know it's been a while since you've been in law school, but let's recap how to engage in legal analysis, shall we?
Read one line, go back to the first issue I raised, and see if there is a piece of anything that first issue.  If not...guess what you do?  You go to your next sentence.  Read that.  See if there is a piece of the first issue which I raised.  You do that until you read every sentence, looking for a piece of every issue.  Once you find a piece of all of the issues that I raised with regard to the fact pattern (ie your public posting of horrible legal advice), you now can begin forming a counterargument.  Until you do that, you look just like your victims (people you give horrific legal advice to).  "No no no I didn't.  I don't know what your TALKING ABOUT!!! CRYSTAL METH!! I HAVE ENEMIES!! I KNOW NOTHING!!"  That's your poor client (victim) in front of the police.

I'm not even going to begin picking apart your new post lol.  You just made it far too easy to issue spot with your ALL CAPS wild ranting about crystal meth and hidden drives.  But for your careless mindless rant, you might have actually had us convinced that you were a legitimate atty.

There isn't any reason to pick his post apart.

All he said was to refuse the package, which certainly IS sound advice.

When he did say or imply anything else?

Some people just like starting flame wars  :-\  Also the first time i've seen a non-mature conversation started on these forums, sigh.

Tearghoa you have some good info there, and i'm sure everyone is happy to hear that!

Yeah, a lot of "heated" discussion taking place about deliveries, which I really don't understand, because in the end, everyone assumes their own risk and stands alone when they open the mailbox or sign for a package.

The only true defense if something goes wrong appears to be plausible deniability, which means ensuring that LE cannot obtain ANY other evidence that can corroborate their theory that you were expecting the package in the first place.

Don't sign for packages and secure that computer, and you should be good to go.  I'm not a believer in fake names, especially in rural areas, because the postal worker gets accustomed to seeing the same names at the same addresses.  I also think that it's a good idea to avoid checking the DCN constantly (or even at all).  Some people use it like a tracking number, which it is not.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 20, 2012, 02:05 am
I agree completely and those are my main points as well. Deny a package if you have to sign, don't check DCN unless there is an urgent issue, and encrypt that computer!  If you can get a hidden OS going (easy with truecrypt) then even if the worst happens and the court orders you to unencrypt - bam, perfectly clean OS  ::)
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: kmfkewm on February 20, 2012, 04:29 am
Quote
I am of the understanding from very reliable sources, that a knock and talk or a major field investigation is the preferred route after a package is detected. My source who works for a top 10 US city police department says they have a policy prohibiting controlled deliveries.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is some truth to this. Although I know of fairly recent CD's, I also have heard of fairly recent cases where there was no CD but rather knock and talk interrogation from postal inspectors (for fairly small amounts) or field investigations leading to SWAT raids (for bigger amounts). Also heard of one case where they waited for the suspect to leave after the delivery, a full day later, and pulled him over on the road like a routine traffic stop.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Shinma on February 20, 2012, 05:00 am
I ordered to my own address, using the name of the previous owner. I still get shit on at least a weekly basis in their name, and have friends use my address for legit deliveries (like off Amazon) all the time so this shouldn't be suspicious at all to the post.

Either it works or lose a couple of bucks or I get nabbed.  That's part of the fun.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 21, 2012, 03:29 am
You're either not a lawyer, or not a very good lawyer.  First of all, I'm not going to FIRAC your entire post bit by bit.  That would take at least an hour, and create pages upon pages of (uncompensated) legal analysis.  I know it's been a while since you've been in law school, but let's recap how to engage in legal analysis, shall we?
Read one line, go back to the first issue I raised, and see if there is a piece of anything that first issue.  If not...guess what you do?  You go to your next sentence.  Read that.  See if there is a piece of the first issue which I raised.  You do that until you read every sentence, looking for a piece of every issue.  Once you find a piece of all of the issues that I raised with regard to the fact pattern (ie your public posting of horrible legal advice), you now can begin forming a counterargument.  Until you do that, you look just like your victims (people you give horrific legal advice to).  "No no no I didn't.  I don't know what your TALKING ABOUT!!! CRYSTAL METH!! I HAVE ENEMIES!! I KNOW NOTHING!!"  That's your poor client (victim) in front of the police.

I'm not even going to begin picking apart your new post lol.  You just made it far too easy to issue spot with your ALL CAPS wild ranting about crystal meth and hidden drives.  But for your careless mindless rant, you might have actually had us convinced that you were a legitimate atty.

There isn't any reason to pick his post apart.

All he said was to refuse the package, which certainly IS sound advice.

When he did say or imply anything else?

Some people just like starting flame wars  :-\  Also the first time i've seen a non-mature conversation started on these forums, sigh.

There is no "flame war."  I have not personally attacked you in this discussion.  What legal rule would be violated in a court of law if I personally involved your character in the argument, Mr. Ronin-at-law?  What do we in the law profession call that?  Huh?  Do you even know this most basic fundamental of law?  Google it for pete's sake lol

I am disputing your advice as non-professional, grossly unsound, and ineffective counsel.  You don't even use legalese.  Legal defense of plausible deniablity?  You mean insufficient evidence, right?  It's not a defense, either.  What law school did you go to?

I agree that telling innocent silk roadians that you're an atty, then turning around and giving them damaging advice that could very well ruin the rest of their life..... is very, very "non-mature."  (another non legal term, or even english for that matter)

One last thing Mr. Ronin-at-law:  No lawyer worth his weight in salt would sigh with issues unresolved.  3 days of 8 hour tests to pass the bar, and you expect people to believe that you can't rebut an argument that takes 10 seconds to read?

Stop telling people you practiced law for 20 years.  Stop giving legal advice.  You're liable to seriously ruin someone's life.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: friendlyoutlaw on February 21, 2012, 03:38 am
Dick waving aside, what's your advice in the situation when somebody attempts a controlled delivery then?

Stand there mute?

Immediately ask for your attorney? (Response..."Uh, I'm a mailman?")

I know what I've been advised to do, both by legal representation and by LEOs. But I'm not sharing it because it's quite novel and exploits a loophole.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 21, 2012, 03:51 am
Dick waving aside, what's your advice in the situation when somebody attempts a controlled delivery then?

Stand there mute?

Immediately ask for your attorney? (Response..."Uh, I'm a mailman?")

I know what I've been advised to do, both by legal representation and by LEOs. But I'm not sharing it because it's quite novel and exploits a loophole.

Yes, dick waving should be set aside, this is not a place for egos (coughcough).

If you want to PM me I would love to hear some new advice - and of course it will stay just between us.  I'm all for knowledge gaining  ;D
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 21, 2012, 10:43 pm
Dick waving aside, what's your advice in the situation when somebody attempts a controlled delivery then?

Stand there mute?

Immediately ask for your attorney? (Response..."Uh, I'm a mailman?")

I know what I've been advised to do, both by legal representation and by LEOs. But I'm not sharing it because it's quite novel and exploits a loophole.
I'm all for knowledge gaining  ;D

What kind of law do you practice?
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: aligibbs on February 21, 2012, 11:09 pm
My tactic to protect against controlled deliveries is just not to answer the door if I'm expecting. If I expect a package from an SR vendor and I've made sure it doesn't require a signature then I'd just let them knock and then go away. If it's a legitimate delivery they'll leave a card (in my country) and if I wanted I could go collect at the post office. In this scenario I probably wouldn't depending on what I'd ordered. But even if you did it's highly unlikely they'll station officers at the PO for weeks following a failed CD attempt, plus the variables would be too great for them and not controlled.

Should you ever find yourself in a situation where you're face to face with them and they want you to sign just make sure you step outside, close your door behind you, and refuse to sign. Don't engage them in a conversation, just be respectful, say you aren't expecting a delivery and don't sign for packages unless it's something you're expecting. And if they won't let it go just say 'if that'll be all' and ask them to leave. At this point, you haven't done anything wrong. They can either arrest you for being paranoid, try and bait you by saying that there were drugs in the package and they want your ideas on 'who might be sending you contraband' or they'll go away. Yes, they'll think you're being a little strange, but that isn't a crime. Lying to them and then it later being found out that you lied, is!

Usually, like with most police work, they're attempting to bait you into saying something incriminating. Don't fall for their games.

If CD's are something you're genuinely concerned about just make every attempt to make yourself as immune as possible - i.e. don't keep a shitload of drugs in your house if you're expecting a delivery, use correct and efficient encryption techniques, including the use of hidden volumes as an earlier poster said, and don't let them talk their way in with lines like 'well if you've got nothing to hide...' - tell them they're called privacy rights for a reason and if they want to come in, to get a warrant.

Also, I find it good practice to learn the encryption laws where you are. There's always a lot of talk about RIPA in the UK, but it can only be executed after they've got good probable cause (not signing for a package not being one of them), and they have to require written notification. Should they get to the stage where they've managed to get a warrant but not found any drugs in your apartment they're unlikely to get authorization to seize your computer unless it was in the original warrant, even then to have you decrypt it requires more paperwork on their side. Also, check the search warrant, some cops will try and tell you it includes things it doesn't. And on the point of RIPA, if you've ordered something that carries a massive penalty if you were caught trafficking it it'd probably worth your while just refusing and taking the RIPA jail time if it'll be less than the jail time for whatever you're hiding (i.e. information about ordering a shitload of really illegal things).

Now I'm just going on...I have more tips, if you're really worried PM me.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: cacoethes on February 22, 2012, 04:14 am
Dick waving aside, what's your advice in the situation when somebody attempts a controlled delivery then?

Stand there mute?

Immediately ask for your attorney? (Response..."Uh, I'm a mailman?")

I know what I've been advised to do, both by legal representation and by LEOs. But I'm not sharing it because it's quite novel and exploits a loophole.
I'm all for knowledge gaining  ;D

What kind of law do you practice?

I'm still wondering what legal advice ron gave.  Just doesn't seem to me like he's practicing law on this forum.  Or giving legal advice.

And I'm NOT a lawyer (although it would be AWESOME to play one on TV) but I'm pretty sure a "legal defense" is only necessary when a case goes to trial.  If it does not go to trial, say for "lack of evidence", then "plausible deniability" has been maintained.  Maybe it doesn't work that way at all, but if it doesn't, then I'd like to know why.

If you have some good advice, I'd like to read about it here, instead of reading your critique of counsel that was never given.  Like "this is what I do and why I do it".

Unless it's quite novel and exploits a loophole.  Then just tease me with your wordsmithiness and leave me with bated breath, the way friendlyoutlaw usually does... ::)
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 22, 2012, 07:20 am
Posting should usually contribute to something rather than just trying to flame and toot your own horn  :-X
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: CA.WeedMan on February 22, 2012, 09:26 am
All of you need to smoke some dank... 
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 23, 2012, 02:10 am
Posting should usually contribute to something rather than just trying to flame and toot your own horn  :-X

I agree.  Stop telling people you practiced law for 20 years.  Anyone who's taken one semester of legal studies know that your full of $h!t.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 23, 2012, 02:24 am
"Maybe it doesn't work that way at all, but if it doesn't, then I'd like to know why."-

It doesn't work that way one bit.  If Mr. Ronin-at-law was even a failed first year law student, he could have told you that.  But I digress on his negligent behavior towards our community.

The why is deeply philosophical.  Instead, I'll tell you the what.  The way it works is a criminal defendant is presumed innocent.  And in no way must provide for an affirmative defense.  The defendant does not have to testify as to his innocence, or prove his innocence with any demonstrative evidence.

In criminal proceedings, there are two basic levels of what level of proof is required by The People of the State of (whatever state).  The first is a preliminary hearing.  This is where the judge reviews the evidence to ensure that probable cause exists.  Probable cause is the level or proof that needs to be met in order to allow The People to take the criminal defendant to trial.  Probable cause is basically a reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed the charge.  It's at the judge's discretion.  It can usually be quantified around 10%-40% likelihood of guilt, but it can't officially be quantified.  Once at trial, the burden of proof in order to convict the defendant rises to proofs beyond a reasonable doubt.  In other words, there is no other reasonable hypothesis that points to innocence.  This burden of proof can't be quantified, either.  But many people would place it at 90%-95% likelihood of guilt.

That's a very very very basic 101 on what kind of proof is required in order to take a criminal defendant to trial.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: friendlyoutlaw on February 23, 2012, 03:33 am
More dick waving, and still no practical advice.

Yep, I for one am convinced that SRE is an attorney.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: BenJesuit on February 23, 2012, 04:46 am
Silk Road Encounter, do you ANY actionable advice?

Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 23, 2012, 06:30 am
More dick waving, and still no practical advice.

Yep, I for one am convinced that SRE is an attorney.

Advice is based on a specific set of facts, or a hypothetical.  I couldn't ethically offer legal advice to aid and abet a criminal to continue in a way of crime.  Much less so on a public forum.  It's called the crime/fraud exception to the atty-client privilege.  I can't knowingly help someone continue in a way of crime.  Even if my personal opinion is that the act should be 100% legal.  (such as 100% of what goes on at SR)  Anonymity is useful for people selling drugs, but ethics and morality still have to be maintained.  Believe it or not, law is quite a noble profession.   I will be offering legal advice on SR.  Listings go up within a couple weeks.

The key component in giving good legal advice is to know all the facts forward and backwards.  That means some back and forth correspondence between myself and the client.

So legally speaking, the actionable part that you're looking for isn't something I could offer so easily as one of the techies on here.  They are the ones that know the ins and outs of ip address triangulation and pgp and record keeping, ect ect.

The legal advice I would give is specifically geared towards keeping you from accidentally doing or saying things that will hurt you, once you've been found out.  I have no problem talking hypotheticals though.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: BenJesuit on February 23, 2012, 03:46 pm
That's a lot of pontificating.

If you actually have actionable advice, you would simply give it instead of all that huffing and puffing. You have to admit, you could have handled yourself better. You're not doing much to engender the trust of the community. In fact, your self contradictory statement about ethics makes you look double-minded and untrustworthy. Good luck with your "listings." I would steer people clear from you if they asked for my opinion.

Might be a LEO trap.

BTW, hypothetical situations ARE actionable. But now, I wouldn't trust your hypothetical examples seeing as you smell of LEO.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: BenJesuit on February 24, 2012, 05:16 am
You are talking straight to the DA not LEO hehehe


LOL. You might be spot on. ;)
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: ron1n on February 24, 2012, 11:55 pm
lol seriously, jumping on my ass because I said "don't accept deliveries that need a signature" and then trying to charge $100 an hour for his advice?  More like get your confession and then hand it over to his fellow LE.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 25, 2012, 12:28 am
your self contradictory statement about ethics makes you look double-minded and untrustworthy

What statement is that?
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 25, 2012, 12:39 am
lol seriously, jumping on my ass because I said "don't accept deliveries that need a signature"

Actually I took it very easy on your "ass."  Exposing your lies about practicing law for 20 years and alerting your victims to the malfeasance of your words is the most beneficial thing I could have possibly done for this community.  You see, in law, we use quotes in a method that is different from your use.  Quotation marks are used to quote someone.  Not paraphrase an idea you attempted to articulate.

What's worse is you couldn't even save face by simply googling on the issues that I challenged you on.  You could have gone to the law library for 6 hours and redeemed yourself.  You could have called up a real lawyer and asked him a few questions.  You could have not responded.

Instead, your mindless bantering geometrically proved just how twisted and dishonest you really are.  You never even came clean about lying.  You're a pathetic liar, misleading people on this forum into a stupid legal strategy of lying to police about matters that are impeachable through evidence.  You Sir, are a sick, sick twisted man.  You should stop misquoting yourself, and take a long look in the mirror at the horrific fraud you've become to the people on this forum.

May God have mercy on your infamous soul.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 25, 2012, 12:44 am

If you actually have actionable advice, you would simply give it

That's funny.  I hope you don't talk to your public defender that way lol.  Mr.Ronin-at-law's advice may be free, but great legal advice charges dearly.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: BenJesuit on February 25, 2012, 01:47 am
Public defender? Really. No, I have 2 lawyers that I use regularly for business and personal matters. As for great legal advice charging dearly... nope. Great legal DEFENSE does. I get great free legal advice all the time as I sure many people do. Lawyers that charge for any advice aren't worth their weight in salt.

You're a poser, LEO. What you offer, remains to be seen. A smart businessman would ante up advice to prove his worth and knowledge. Not attack someone else's advice while offering no meaningful rebuttal.

You're suspect. No two ways about it.

I'd wish you good luck, but in doing so, I'd be wishing for the demise of my fellow Silk Roaders.

So, I'll just say... I hope no one takes you up on anything you have to offer. It might be the end of them. 
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: BenJesuit on February 25, 2012, 02:12 am
your self contradictory statement about ethics makes you look double-minded and untrustworthy

What statement is that?

That you can't knowingly aid and abet someone commit or continue in criminal activity all the while planing to offer your "legal services" to those who are in no uncertain terms committing criminal activity.

While I agree that law can be a noble profession, you sir, are not a reflection of that as it stands now.

In any event, you won't be here long. The market has no need of your services. Certainly not in the manner in which you're offering.

I mean, I can't imagine a compatible scenario where someone goes, "Oh shit! I'd better log on to SR and buy that guy's legal services before it's too late. Else, I'm assed out. Good thing I didn't spend my bitcoins on drugs yesterday."

Emm-mmm. Not going to happen.

All's not lost though. This place has a wonderful assortment of drugs. Whatever you're into, I'm sure someone sells it. I invite you to get high. No worries, you can thank me later.
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 25, 2012, 06:08 am
your self contradictory statement about ethics makes you look double-minded and untrustworthy

What statement is that?
I invite you to get high. No worries, you can thank me later.
Good advice lol.  And I didn't even have to pay for it haha
Title: Re: Documented Controlled Deliveries?
Post by: Silk Road Encounter on February 25, 2012, 09:13 am
your self contradictory statement about ethics makes you look double-minded and untrustworthy

What statement is that?

That you can't knowingly aid and abet someone commit or continue in criminal activity all the while planing to offer your "legal services" to those who are in no uncertain terms committing criminal activity.

In any event, you won't be here long. The market has no need of your services.

I didn't have time to respond to all of this earlier, but I'd like to respond now.  you bring up a very good point about giving advice to people on SR as being "those who are in no uncertain terms committing criminal activity."  It's a reasonable idea.  And therefore one could argue that I was knowingly violating the crime/fraud exception.  But I don't think that everyone on SR is a criminal.  And I certainly don't know if anyone is using the advice in furtherance of continued crimes or frauds.  You're argument is reasonable, but insufficient to provide for a particular fact showing that the legal advice should be presumed to commit more crime, other than the fact that the person happened to silk road.  On a case by case basis, I'd have to weigh the facts against the rule of crime/fraud exception.  Most criminal defense advice is given to criminals.  That fact alone isn't enough to prove a crime/fraud exception.  Point well taken, though.

In the next matter, whether or not my services are needed will hinge on the market's reaction.  I think there is a need for great legal advice on SR.  I also think there is a need for other types of professional advice, such as advice on technology and security.  Only the market can decide what ideas will succeed.  You may be right on that point, though.

I apologize if I seem abrasive at times.  Passion tends to go hand in glove with the field of law.  I'll tone it down a bit from now on...