In its recent Memorandum of Law, the prosecution includes an interesting footnote at the bottom of page three. It says:

Although the Complaint and search warrants in this case refer to the request as a “Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request,” this description is not technically correct, as the United States does not have an MLAT with Iceland.

So by “not technically correct” do they mean untrue?  Apparently so, since the prosecution admits that the US does not have an MLAT with Iceland. Yet affidavits submitted to gain multiple warrants in the Silk Road case say it does. Affidavits in support of warrant applications are made under oath. Each affidavit repeats the same claim, so the possibility of its being a random error is nil.

Are we now to conclude that the government can, with impunity, make false statements under oath? Doesn’t this mislead a judge? Wouldn’t we go to jail if we did this?  Is it reasonable to ask what else they have stated that is “not technically correct?” Murder-for-hire perhaps?