Transcription

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18Filed 11/12/12 Page 1 of 2UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK-----------------------------XUNITED STATES OF AMERICA-against-12 Cr. 185 (LAP)JEREMY ASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the attached affirmationof ELIZABETH M. FINK and the attached Memorandum of Law,the undersigned will move this Court on November 19, 2012at 10 in the morning or as soon thereafter as counsel canbe heard for an Order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) andthe Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the UnitedStates Constitution, granting bail, setting reasonbleconditions of release for JEREMY HAMMOND, and granting suchother and further relief as may be just and proper.Dated:Brooklyn, New YorkNovember 12, 2012Yours, etc.,ELIZABETH M. FINKAttorney for JEREMY HAMMOND(718)783-3682(718)783-5853 (fax)

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18Filed 11/12/12 Page 2 of 2TO: AUSA ROSEMARY NIDIRY, AUSA THOMAS BROWN (VIA ECF)CLERK OF THE COURT,UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (VIA ECF)

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-1Filed 11/12/12 Page 1 of 6UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK----------------------------XUNITED STATES OF AMERICA12 Cr. 185 (LAP)-against-AFFIRMATION IN SUPPPORTJEREMY TE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGS)) ss.:)ELIZABETH M. FINK, an attorney admitted to practicelaw before this Court, under pain and penalty of perjury,affirms as follows:1.I represent the above-named defendant pursuant tothe Criminal Justice Act, and make this affirmation insupport of his motion for bail pursuant to 18 USC § 3142(g)and the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the UnitedStates Constitution.2.On March 6, 2012, Jeremy Hammond was arrested athis apartment in Chicago on a federal criminal complaintoriginating from this Court alleging computer hackingcrimes targeting entities, both private and governmental,engaged in policing and security activities. At the time of

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-1Filed 11/12/12 Page 2 of 6this arrest, Mr. Hammond, 27 years old, was well known tostate and federal authorities as a political activist witha particular expertise in computers. From an early age, Mr.Hammond had chosen a political course. He viewed the worldas a place of great injustice that compelled an activeresistance. Along with unknown numbers of activistsworldwide, he fought for open accountability andprogressive movements. In 2006, Mr. Hammond was indicted inthe Northern District of Illinois for violation of 18 USC1030(a)(2)(C) and 2. United States v. Hammond, 06 Cr. 380(N.D. Ill. filed May 23, 2006). The allegations were thathe hacked into Patriot Warrior, an extremist right-wingorganization known for disrupting peace rallies. He wasreleased on an unsecured 10,000 bond subject tolimitations on his computer usage. Mr. Hammond pled guiltyand was sentenced on December 7, 2006, to 24 monthsimprisonment. He was permitted to self-surrender in January2007 and served out his term.3.At the time of Mr. Hammond’s arrest herein, hishouse was searched; his computer was taken, and a largequantity of materials was seized. He was held in MCCChicago pending removal to the Southern District andtransferred to MCC-NY on March 16, 2012.4.On March 17, 2012, Mr. Hammond was brought to

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-1Filed 11/12/12 Page 3 of 6Magistrate’s Court and arraigned on the Criminal Complaint.I was assigned as counsel pursuant to CJA and thegovernment moved for preventive detention. In addition,press reports revealed the continuous involvement of thegovernment provocateur—cooperator, Hector Monsegur. Tenmonths after Hector Monsegur began working for thegovernment, Mr. Hammond was charged with being a member ofa conspiracy called “Anonymous” to engage in cyber attackson businesses and governments, including the ArizonaDepartment of Public Safety (DPS) and the globalintelligence firm Stratfor (a.k.a. Strategic Forecasting).5.As outlined in the accompanying memorandum oflaw, Jeremy Hammond will not pose a risk of flight ordanger to any person or community and is an ideal candidatefor bail release. However, an additional reason exists forbail in this case. Given the staggering quantity and natureof discovery, Mr. Hammond's continued detention will makeit impossible for counsel to adequately prepare for trial.6.The discovery consists of 5 discs containing over100,000 Bates-stamped pages – roughly equivalent to 40 fileboxes of documents - and a computer hard drive containingover 158 gigabytes of compressed data which requirestechnical expertise to view and cannot be opened on ourcomputers. According to the government, the hard drive

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-1Filed 11/12/12 Page 4 of 6contains (1) a forensic image of Mr. Hammond's computer,(2) a copy of the contents of an onion server that Mr.Hammond allegedly provided to the CW, and (3) a compressedcopy of the contents of a server allegedly provided by theCW to Mr. Hammond onto which data from Stratfor wasallegedly loaded.7.We have been consulting with Jerry Tritz, the CJACase-Budgeting Attorney for the Southern District of NewYork. Mr. Tritz referred us to Emma Greenwood, aCoordinating Discovery Attorney (CDA) in CJA cases. Ms.Greenwood has reviewed the protective order issued by theCourt and understands that she is bound by the terms of theorder. As the majority of these documents were not providedby the government in a searchable format, Ms. Greenwoodutilized OCR text-recognition software to help defensecounsel navigate these materials more quickly.8.As for the inaccessible contents of the computerhard drive, Ms. Greenwood suggested that we contact AccessData to conduct a pre-analysis of the information on thedrive. According to a Proposed Statement of Work preparedby Access Data, the original drive contained 158.8gigabytes of data and 43,305 separate files. Access Dataprepared a proposal to De-NIST these files and make themmore accessible to defense counsel. “De-NIST”ing is the

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-1Filed 11/12/12 Page 5 of 6process of identifying these files so that a decision canbe made if they should be set aside or removed from adiscovery database. The types of files that are removed areapplication files and other files that are not usergenerated. This would reduce the quantity of data to 10gigabytes and 42,532 separate files, which would eliminate732 files. Access Data will also host the remaining data onits servers, and can provide it on a hard drive. Review ofthis material is much easier on Access Data's server, wherethey provide search assistance, project management, andgeneral expertise in accessing and understanding thevarious file types.9.As the Court is aware, under the terms of theprotective order, Mr. Hammond may only view the majority ofthese materials in the presence of defense counsel orparalegals who are members of defense counsel's staff.Moreover, even without the protective order, Mr. Hammond isprohibited by the Bureau of Prisons from using anycomputers – even those without Internet access – outside ofthe presence of counsel. Under these conditions, weconservatively estimate that the necessary review of thismaterial with the defendant could take years, with aparalegal visiting the jail five days a week. Further,while we can burn the De-NISTed computer files to disc to

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-1Filed 11/12/12 Page 6 of 6share them with our client, we will not be able to makeuses of Access Data's data hosting, organizational systems,or assistance from inside the MCC.10.In light of the complexity and quantity ofdiscovery materials in this case, and the restrictionsplaced on their review, Mr. Hammond’s right to a fair trialis compromised. Under present conditions, neither Mr.Hammond nor his counsel can conduct meaningful review ofthe discovery. I cannot provide him with the effectiveassistance of counsel and cannot adequately prepare fortrial. This reality, coupled with the fact that conditionsexist that will reasonably assure the safety of thecommunity and the defendant’s appearance in court,necessitate bail release in this case.WHEREFORE it is respectfully requested that this Courtgrant the defendant’s bail motion and grant such other andfurther relief as may be just and proper.Elizabeth M. FinkDated:Brooklyn, New YorkNovember 12, 2012

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-2Filed 11/12/12 Page 1 of 15UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK----------------------------XUNITED STATES OF AMERICAMEMORANDUM OF LAW INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'SMOTION FOR BAIL-against-12 Cr. 185 (LAP)JEREMY ODUCTIONThis memorandum is submitted in support of JeremyHammond’s motion for bail pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)and the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the UnitedStates Constitution. As addressed herein, these lawsrequire that Mr. Hammond be released on bail. There is apresumption favoring bail release for the offense withwhich he is charged. Mr. Hammond is a perfect candidate, ashe has demonstrated that he will not pose a risk of flightor danger to any person or the community. Furthermore,given the staggering quantity of discovery and complexityof the charged offense, Mr. Hammond's continued detentionwill make it impossible for counsel to adequately preparefor trial.Page 1 of 15

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-2Filed 11/12/12 Page 2 of 15STATEMENT OF FACTSJeremy Hammond is 28 years old and a lifelong residentof Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Hammond graduated from GlenbardEast High School in 2003. He has worked consistently sincehe was 16 years old, and has held jobs as a web developer,a technician at an Apple Computer repair center, a guitarteacher, and a math instructor at a neighborhood communitycenter. Prior to his arrest on March 5, 2012, he had beenemployed since 2008 as a web developer with Rome & Company,an advertising agency and brand consultancy company basedin Chicago. He also volunteered once a week serving food tothe needy with the Chicago chapter of Food Not Bombs.Hisfamily is aware of the charges against him, and issupportive and willing to sign for him. Mr. Hammond hasnever owned a passport and has never left the country asidefrom one trip to Canada with his parents when he was sixyears old.In 2006, Mr. Hammond was indicted in the NorthernDistrict of Illinois for fraud activity involving computersin violation of 18 USC 1030(a)(2)(C) and 2, United Statesv. Hammond, 06 Cr. 380 (N.D. Ill. filed May 23, 2006), forPage 2 of 15

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-2Filed 11/12/12 Page 3 of 15hacking into Patriot Warrior, an extremist right-wingorganization known for disrupting peace rallies. He wasreleased on an unsecured 10,000 bond subject tolimitations on his computer usage. Mr. Hammond pled guiltyand was sentenced on December 7, 2006, to 24 monthsimprisonment. He self-surrendered in January 2007 andserved out his term. Prior to this incarceration, Mr.Hammond worked at Rome & Company for two years – from 2004through 2006.Mr. Hammond is charged in the instant indictment withtwo counts of conspiracy to commit computer hacking, 18 USC1030(a)(5)(A), 1030(c)(4)(B)(i), and 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I),one count of computer hacking, 18 USC 1030(a)(5)(A),1030(b), 1030(c)(4)(B)(i) and (2), one count of conspiracyto commit to access device fraud, 18 USC 1029(a)(3) and1029(a)(5), and one count of aggravated identity theft, 18USC 1028(A) and (2), in connection, inter alia, with therelease of corporate internet files and emails of theprivate security firm Stratfor to Wikileaks. These chargesarise from Mr. Hammond’s alleged participation in theactivist hacker group “Anonymous.”Page 3 of 15

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-2Filed 11/12/12 Page 4 of 15LEGAL ARGUMENTUnder the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 etseq., a court generally “must release a defendant on bailon the least restrictive condition or combination ofconditions that will reasonably assure the defendant’sappearance when required and the safety of the community.”United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240, 246 (S.D.N.Y.2009); 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). It is properly viewed asa permissible regulatory, or preventative, measure for useby the courts, rather than being punitive in nature. SeeUnited States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747, 107 S.Ct.2095, 2101 (1987). Significantly, in enacting the BailReform Act, Congress recognized “the traditionalpresumption favoring pretrial release ‘for the majority ofFederal defendants.’” United States v. Berrios-Berrios, 791F.2d 246, 250 (2d Cir. 1986) cert. dismissed 479 U.S. 978,107 S.Ct. 562 (1986). Accordingly, the Supreme Court hasobserved that “[i]n our society liberty is the norm, anddetention prior to trial or without trial is the carefullylimited exception.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 755, 107 S.Ct. at2105.“Because the law thus generally favors bail release,the government carries a dual burden in seeking pre-trialPage 4 of 15

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 18-2Filed 11/12/12 Page 5 of 15detention. First, it must establish by a preponderance ofthe evidence that the defendant, if released, presents anactual risk of flight. Assuming it satisfies this burden,the government must then demonstrate by a preponderance ofthe evidence that no condition or combination of conditionscould be imposed on the defendant that would reasonablyassure his presence in court.” United States v. Sabhnani,493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal citationsomitted). The government carries an even higher burden ifit seeks to prove that the defendant is dangerous, in whichcase its burden is proof by clear and convincing evidence.United States v. Vasconcellos, 519 F. Supp. 2d 311, 316(N.D.N.Y. 2007).In determining whether there are conditions of releasethat will reasonably assure the appearance of the person asrequired and the