Daniel Wenner, a white-collar lawyer and former Brooklyn assistant US attorney, called Ulbricht’s argument "very creative and cutting edge," but said he’d be "stunned" if a judge sided with the alleged Silk Road operator.

I get frustrated when I read things like this. How can Wenner say the argument is 'creative and cutting edge' if he would be stunned if a judge sided with him? If I said that I was making hats with propellers on them that would enable people to fly to work, you would not call my idea 'creative and cutting edge'.

The guy has a non-zero chance of getting his $33M back by confusing a judge, so he's taking it.