In a scathing opinion and order on Wednesday, the federal judge presiding over the Silk Road case denied the defense’s motion to dismiss all four criminal counts, rejecting every argument made. Absent a plea deal, the case will now go to trial scheduled for November in a New York federal courtroom.

The underground drug website Silk Road, which was shut down as part of a federal raid late last year, was only accessible through the anonymizing tool Tor. The government alleges that Ross Ulbricht, as Dread Pirate Roberts (DPR), "reaped commissions worth tens of millions of dollars” through his role as the site’s leader.

“Haven’t finished reading the opinion so no comment,” Ulbricht’s attorney, Joshua Dratel, e-mailed Ars.

In her 51-page ruling, Judge Katherine Forrest did not buy any of the defense’s arguments. Among them, Dratel claimed that the money laundering charges must fail because Silk Road's currency of choice was Bitcoin, which he said is not money.

“‘Money’ is an object used to buy things,” the judge ruled. “Put simply, ‘funds’ can be used to pay for things in the colloquial sense.”

Judge Forrest also did not agree that Ulbricht, as the alleged operator of Silk Road, was exempted for prosecution under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This civil law states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

"Even a quick reading of the statute makes it clear that it is not intended to apply to the type of intentional and criminal acts alleged to have occurred here,” Judge Forrest wrote. “It is inapplicable."

Orin Kerr, a professor of law at George Washington University, said “The judge's ruling is correct on the law. It shouldn't come as a surprise.”

Dratel argued that the hacking-related charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was misplaced. Because Ulbricht did not himself access a computer without authorization or exceed such authorization, he cannot possibly fall under this law, he argued.

The government alleged that the defendant conspired "to commit computer hacking offenses."

"That the statute may implicate a broad swath of conduct is an issue for Congress. Whether this issue has any special significance can only be determined at trial. That is, whether Ulbricht’s and his conspirators’ alleged conduct falls into the suggested grey area must await the Government’s proof," the judge said.

Ulbricht’s defense also fell flat regarding the conspiracy allegations.

“Ulbricht’s alleged conduct is not analogous to an individual who merely steers buyers to sellers; rather he has provided the marketing mechanism, the procedures for the sale, and facilities for the actual exchange,” the judge wrote. “He is alleged to know that his facilities would be used for illicit purposes and in fact, he designed and operated them for that purpose."

Hanni Fakhoury, a former public defender and now an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars that he was also “not terribly surprised by the outcome.”

“As the court noted," he said, "a lot of this is going to be resolved in front of the jury who’s going to have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt Ulbricht entered into conspiracies and did something more than merely provide a forum for the sale of drugs."