Posted on 05/05/2009 12:32:40 PM PDT by hiredhand
Oxford, N.C. — Sixteen-year-old Ashton Lundeby's bedroom in his mother's Granville County home is nothing, if not patriotic. Images of American flags are everywhere – on the bed, on the floor, on the wall.
But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
Of course it's plausible. The correct question is whether or not it's accurate. I found traces of evidence that support Poulson's story. I agree that Mom's admissions that Ashton played the part of Tyrone is damaging. Tyrone's voice and the recorded voice of the bomb-hoaxer are "the same" to my untrained ear - and Mom saying "other people sound like him" is a lame dodge. Of all the hackers in the world, the one who hacked my son's system happens to sound just like him! ROTFL. About as credible as your assertions that months of detention w/o indictment/information is not out of the ordinary.
This also takes care of the certification, or taking the case out of the hands of the state. Under 18 USC 5032, the feds are required to allege (3) the offense charged is a crime of violence that is a felony [check, this one is] and that there is a substantial Federal interest in the case or the offense to warrant the exercise of Federal jurisdiction [this seems to be a question of discretion in juvenile bomb threat hoaxes, seeing as how so many of them are perpetrated each year].
It's entirely conceivable that the juvenile information was filed back in March, and that all delays in getting to trial are accounted for by the defendant agreeing to delay. That would leave "relocation from NC to Indiana" as an unexplained element.
No, we don't. All the press releases have come out of Indiana, and I don't have any serious issue with a delay of a day or two between detention and arraignment, although as you point out, the facts seem to admit (make it easy) for the feds to have the juvenile information in hand at the moment of taking into custody.
-- They doubtless put Lundeby's initial/detention hearing on the court docket before March 6. Part of the reason for the 18-day delay between the bomb threat and the initial/detention hearing may have been because they could not get an earlier court date. --
The first entry on the trial docket will be filing the juvenile information. Again, there is no "due process" issue whatsoever with delays that attach to investigation. From news reports, the creep had made threats over a period of weeks. The available evidence of where, in his pattern of making bomb threat hoax calls, the Purdue call falls, doesn't make it definitively "the first." The evidence doesn't clarify if the February 15 Purdue call was the first, or somewhere in the middle. I suspect that timing of taking into custody is closely related to the evidence provided by the snitch. "On March 5, Bennett recorded a series of bomb threats made by 'Tyrone' against five schools." Those were probably the last bomb-threat hoax calls.
-- We still do not know when the relocation took place but since two hearings have been held in Indiana, it was probably soon after the March 6 hearing. --
That's a good point. We don't have a precise date of transfer. I had assumed that it was within a couple days of taking into custody (based on the March 6, 2009 DOJ Press Release coming out of Indiana), and that the court hearing in NC and the first in Indiana were very close in time. I wonder if the court-appointed defense counsel is the same person in both venues.
-- I still maintain that the move to Indiana was appropriate because in this country people are tried in the jurisdiction where the crime took place --
I maintain that the location of the crime is up for grabs (not all of his threats were against schools in the Northern District of Indiana - the only "common" location is his home), and that the feds have not provided justification for deviating from the plain language of 18 USC 5035. A "crime was in Indiana" justification is not responsive to my May 7 question relating to accounting for the relocation, expressed in post No. 59 above, addressed to you.
A juvenile alleged to be delinquent may be detained only in a juvenile facility or such other suitable place as the Attorney General may designate. Whenever possible, detention shall be in a foster home or community based facility located in or near his home community.
Give me a break.
I speculate that the evidence in the Purdue call has some holes in it. Pure speculation, based only on the fact that the snitch's recorded evidence is not of the Feb 15 call, and Lundeby seems to have a Feb 15 alibi. Lundeby doesn't have much of a defense for the recorded calls provided by the snitch.
I find your interpretation of "whenever possible" as being a huge loophole to be incredible. It is also a non-specific justification. I bet I can find juvie sites with beds in NC. I'm not saying the feds didn't have a reason, I'm just saying "not possible" isn't specific enough reason to satisfy a judge. Once ONE judge decides relocation is acceptable, it's a done deal. No way will two judges at the trial level disagree and create an issue for the prosecutor. And too, the search warrant may have issued out of Indiana. I can picture the hearing before the NC judge to be informative in nature - "we have the case, here are the papers, we're taking the boy to Indiana."
I figure details of the detention, charging, relocation, and trial delay will be available in the next 2-10 months. I don't see much value in further speculation.
Mom Loses Bid for Purdue Bomb Hoax Suspect's Freedom by Kevin Poulsen [Wired] - June 3, 2009, which links to a few earlier articles. One of the earlier ones, Mother of Purdue Bomb Hoax Suspect Sues for Son's Release (May 27, 2009) includes a link to a petition for habeas, filed by Mrs. Lundeby. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/05/annette_lundeby_filing.pdf.
The filing is pro se, and it shows. Case No. 3:09-cv-00234-RL, titled as being filed in the Northern District of Illinois, South Bend Division. LOL. This case No. is NOT the same case No. as would contain an indictment or complaint against Ashton - Mrs. Lundeby's habeas filing is Doc. No. 1 in 3:09-cv-00234-RL
Her legal theories are BS, and the pleading is borderline insane; but she says she does not have any notice of the charges, and that she did not consent to the appointment of counsel for her son. She also claims that the voice on the bomb threat to Purdue is not her son's voice (which would mean it doesn't sound like "Tyrone's" voice either - the recorded calls that were available on the internet were in "Tyrone's" voice and were threats to schools in states other than Indiana)
Therefore, taking this back down to the ground, Next Friend demands proof (1) that the U.S. is, in fact, insolvent, (2) that the USOA is, in fact, an authorized representative of this insolvency estate, and (3) that USOA is, in fact, a "foreign" entity for which doj would have signature authority at all.
The June 3 article includes some quotes from the Court's response. I may obtain the entire response to see if it contains useful information.
A.L.[the teen] may raise challenges to his pretrial confinement and the sufficiency of the indictment as well as jurisdictional and due process concerns in the pending pretrial proceedings and, if desired, on appeal ... A.L. already has challenged his pretrial detention unsuccessfully and may take an interlocutory appeal of his pretrial detention. ... Mrs. Lundeby hasn't identified any nonfrivolous basis for pursuing habeas relief in advance of trial.
Cause No. 3:09-CV-234 RMORDER
On May 22, 2009, Annette Lundeby filed a document with the court captioned as a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2242. Ms. Lundeby filed the petition on behalf of her minor son, A.L., who awaits decision on the government's motion in this court to transfer him to adult jurisdiction. Mrs. Lundeby asserts various objections to the ongoing proceedings, including due process and subject matter jurisdiction challenges. Mrs. Lundeby asks that the court issue a writ of habeas corpus releasing A.L. from pretrial detention and placing him on supervised release pending final resolution of his case. On May 26, Mrs. Lundeby filed an amended petition, substantially identical in substance to the first filed petition. ...
... A.L. already has challenged his pretrial detention unsuccessfully and may take an interlocutory appeal of his pretrial detention. Fed. R. App. P. 9 provides that a party may obtain review of a district court order regarding detention of a defendant before judgment of conviction. Mrs. Lundeby hasn't identified any nonfrivolous basis for pursuing habeas relief in advance of trial. ...
Accordingly, the court DENIES A.L.'s first pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1] and A.L.'s first amended pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 3] and DISMISSES the action without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: June 3, 2009
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Mrs. Lundeby is appealing the order. This case tells us nothing about the timing of the indictment or how Ashton's relocation from North Carolina to Indiana is in conformity with the relevant federal statutes that pertain to relocation of juveniles.
I was just providing information and wasn't expecting a reply. Delay is a total non-issue.
-- I thought that proceedings in this case were sealed since Ashton is in the juvenile system. --
As I noted before, there are two cases. Ashton's criminal case and Annette's prayer for relief via habeas corpus.
-- Do you have a link to the judge's statement? --
No. I grabbed it from PACER. The interesting parts are reproduced above. I'll post the complete Order below.
-- ... how did you learn that Mrs. Lundeby is appealing the order? --
From the docket sheet for her habeas corpus case, available via PACER.
-- Do you have a link for that too? --
No. I'll post the entries relevant to the taking of an appeal below. In the docket sheet, "AL" is Annette Lundeby, not Ashton Lundeby. "kds" is the clerk who made the docket entry. Numbers appearing in the "Docket Text" column are references to the Docket Numbers (or Document Numbers) assigned to the various papers. I.e., Doc. 7 is the Clerk's Judgment; Doc. 6 is the Order Dismissing the Civil Case; etc.
Date Filed # Docket Text
06/04/2009 9 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 7 Clerks Judgment,
6 Order dismissing Civil Case by AL.
(kds) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/05/2009 10 Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals
re 9 Notice of Appeal
(kds) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/08/2009 11 USCA Case Number 09-2461 for 9 Notice
of Appeal filed by AL.
(ksc) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
A.L., a minor prisoner, by next friend )
Annette Lundeby, )
)
Petitioner )
)
v. ) Cause No. 3:09-CV-234 RM
)
BILL BRUINSMA, )
)
Respondent )
ORDER
On May 22, 2009, Annette Lundeby filed a document with the court
captioned as a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2242. Ms.
Lundeby filed the petition on behalf of her minor son, A.L., who awaits decision
on the government's motion in this court to transfer him to adult jurisdiction. Mrs.
Lundeby asserts various objections to the ongoing proceedings, including due
process and subject matter jurisdiction challenges. Mrs. Lundeby asks that the
court issue a writ of habeas corpus releasing A.L. from pretrial detention and
placing him on supervised release pending final resolution of his case. On May 26,
Mrs. Lundeby filed an amended petition, substantially identical in substance to
the first filed petition. For the following reasons, the court denies Mrs. Lundeby's
motions for habeas corpus.
Section 2241 provides district courts with the power to grant applications
for writs of habeas corpus made by prisoners, including those "in custody under
or by color of the authority of the United States . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2241. To be
eligible for habeas relief under § 2241, a federal pretrial detainee must first
exhaust other available remedies. Alden v. Kellerman, 224 Fed. Appx. 545, 547
(7th Cir. 2007) (citing Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391-392 (1918) ("It is well
settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the
regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be
granted in advance of a trial")); see also Moore v. United States, 875 F. Supp. 620,
624 (D. Neb. 1994) ("[W]here habeas claims raised by a pretrial detainee would be
dispositive of the pending federal criminal charges, principles of federal court
efficiency require that the petitioner exhaust those claims by presenting them at
trial and on direct appeal."). For example, a federal pretrial detainee cannot use
§ 2241 to challenge pretrial detention orders that can be challenged under 18
U.S.C. § 3145, United States v. Pipito, 861 F.2d 1006, 1009 (7th Cir. 1987), or to
challenge the sufficiency of an indictment where the defendant can still pursue
the challenge during his criminal appeal. See Allen v. Kellerman, 224 Fed. Appx.
at 547; see also In re Williams, 306 Fed. Appx. 818, 819 (4th Cir. 2009)
(dismissing federal pretrial detainee's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to § 2241 where the defendant could assert his claims in his pending
criminal case).
Assuming Mrs. Lundeby stands in her son's shoes for habeas purposes —
a dubious assumption — she hasn't exhausted the available remedies or shown
that exceptional circumstances justify the relief requested. A.L. may raise
challenges to his pretrial confinement and the sufficiency of the indictment as well
2
as jurisdictional and due process concerns in the pending pretrial proceedings
and, if desired, on appeal. A.L. already has challenged his pretrial detention
unsuccessfully and may take an interlocutory appeal of his pretrial detention. Fed.
R. App. P. 9 provides that a party may obtain review of a district court order
regarding detention of a defendant before judgment of conviction. Mrs. Lundeby
hasn't identified any nonfrivolous basis for pursuing habeas relief in advance of
trial. See Meyers v. Mukasey, 2009 WL 210715 at *1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2009)
(denying federal pretrial detainee’s § 2241 petition where the defendant failed to
show cause why his allegations regarding a conspiracy between the prosecutor,
his defense counsel, and the court couldn't be fairly raised at trial).
Accordingly, the court DENIES A.L.'s first pretrial application for writ of
habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1] and A.L.'s first amended pretrial application for writ
of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 3] and DISMISSES the action without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: June 3, 2009
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
cc: AL c/o A. Lundeby
J. Masters
3
Thanks for answering and also thanks for telling me about PACER.
Update
Federal Grand Jury Returns Indictment on Internet Bomb Threats
Indianapolis.FBI.gov - DOJ Press Release ^ | July 8, 2009 | n/a
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 3:39:15 AM by Cindy
Federal Grand Jury Returns Indictment on Internet Bomb Threats
Hammond, IN—The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana announced that a three-count indictment was returned against Ashton Lundeby for his role in Internet bomb and related threats directed to Purdue University, Indiana University/Purdue University at Fort Wayne, Ind., and numerous other educational institutions throughout the country.
Lundeby, 16, of Oxford, N.C., was arrested by the FBI at his home in Oxford on March 6, 2009. A federal search warrant was also executed at that time. Lundeby was arrested pursuant to a juvenile criminal complaint filed in the Northern District of Indiana. Lundeby was ordered detained and remains in federal custody. Under federal law, juvenile proceedings are sealed.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a motion seeking to proceed against Lundeby as if he were an adult. The U.S. District Court in South Bend granted that motion and this indictment followed. An indictment is merely a charging document and all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.
The indictment alleges an extensive conspiracy involving Lundeby and unnamed other individuals to transmit bomb threats through the Internet. Lundeby, often using the pseudonym “Tyrone,” and his co-conspirators used Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) software to set-up large-scale conference calls across the Internet. In addition, online computer gaming accounts were used so participants could listen and observe the police response in real-time.
Lundeby and his associates charged fees to listen and observe. Lundeby and his associates used other software to disguise their true identities and the origin of the calls.
Lundeby and other co-conspirators would often target institutions that used web-based video surveillance cameras. They would log into those cameras, call in a bomb threat, and watch the police response in real-time. This illegal conduct is known as “swatting,” making false reports of an emergency to a police department for the purpose of causing a law enforcement response to the non-existent emergency. Lundeby conducted this activity from his personal computer at his home in Oxford, N.C.
The indictment alleges that on Jan. 31, 2009, Lundeby and others directed calls to authorities stating that a bomb had been placed on the campus of Indiana University/Purdue University in Fort Wayne, Ind.
On Feb. 15, 2009, Lundeby and others directed multiple calls to Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., stating that bombs had been placed on the campus. A follow-up call to Purdue University was made by a co-conspirator claiming to have seen someone place devices onto computers located in the mechanical engineering building.
On March 3, 2009, members of the conspiracy again targeted Purdue University. During this call they identified a person in the computer science building as being armed with a firearm.
In addition to the threats in the Northern District of Indiana, the indictment alleges that Lundeby and co-conspirators:
Directed bomb threats on Feb. 15, 2009, to the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. Directed bomb threats on Feb. 21, 2009, to Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla. Directed bomb threats on Feb. 24, 2009, to Clemson University, Clemson, S.C. Directed bomb threats on Feb. 24-25, 2009, to Boston College, Boston, Mass. Directed bomb threats to FBI offices located in Pueblo, CO, and Monroe, La. The indictment also alleges that as part of the conspiracy conspirators offered, for a nominal fee, to make bomb threat calls—often to high schools—to cause closures.
The indictment alleges that bomb threats were made on or about March 4, 2009, to the following schools:
West Hempfield Middle School, Irwin, Penn. North Farmington H.S., Farmington Hills, Mich. Mill Valley H.S., Shawnee, Kan. Hamden H.S., Hamden, Conn. Glynn Academy H.S., Brunswick, Ga.
Specifically, Lundeby is charged in count one of the indictment with conspiring, from mid-2008 through March 6, 2009, to make bomb threats and conveying false information through interstate commerce. Lundeby is charged in count two with a substantive violation for the Jan. 31, 2009, threat to Indiana University/Purdue University at Fort Wayne and in count three for the Feb. 15, 2009, threat to Purdue University.
This indictment was the result of an extensive investigation by the FBI, the FBI’s Cybercrime Squad based in Indianapolis, the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor’s Office and the Purdue University Police Department.
U.S. Attorney David Capp praised the cooperative investigative effort here stating, “To properly investigate a crime of this scope and magnitude requires sophisticated technical expertise as well as old fashioned police work. I am grateful for the substantial assistance received from the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor Patrick Harrington and his staff and from Chief John Cox and the Purdue University Police Department.”
Capp also praised the excellent assistance his office received from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Capp concluded by stating, “This type of activity on the Internet will not be tolerated. No matter where you are located, conduct like this will be thoroughly investigated and, where appropriate, presented for indictment.”
This case has been assigned to and will be handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth M. Hays in the South Bend office of the U.S. Attorney.
Lundeby will be arraigned before Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein on Friday, July 10. The specific sentence in each case to be imposed upon conviction will be determined by the judge after a consideration of federal sentencing statutes and the federal sentencing guidelines.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office emphasized that an indictment is merely an allegation and that all persons charged are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.
Link to Department of Justice Press Release
I still have questions about the date and contents of the juvenile criminal complaint filed in the Northern District of Indiana; and of the rationale supporting his detention so far from North Carolina, in light of federal juvie law. The hearing relating to charging as an adult was to have occurred in late May, May 22nd if I recall correctly. Rather a drawn out chain of events and timeline between arrest and indictment.
The case No. is 3:09-cr-00080-RLM and it is captioned "United States of America v. Lundeby".
U.S. District Court Northern District of Indiana [LIVE]
USDC Northern Indiana (South Bend)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cr-00080-RLM All Defendants
Case title: United States of America v. Lundeby
Date Filed: 07/08/2009
Date Filed # Docket Text
07/08/2009 1 INDICTMENT as to Ashton C Lundeby (1) count(s) 1, 2-3.
(sdf) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
07/09/2009 3 NOTICE OF HEARING.Initial Appearance/ Arraignment as
to Ashton C Lundeby set for 7/10/2009 03:00 PM in US
District Court - South Bend before Magistrate Judge
Christopher A Nuechterlein. (slm) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
I obtained a copy of the 15 page indictment. Count 1 is an 18 USC 371 - Conspiracy.Count 2 is an 18 USC 844(e) offense for January 31, 2009 bomb threat hoax calls to IUPU-Fort Wayne.
Count 3 is an 18 USC 844(e) offense for February 15, 2009 bomb threat hoax calls to Purdue University.
Counts 2 and 3 recite "On or about the [date], in [Allen/Tippecanoe] County, Northern District of Indiana, and elsewhere, the defendant ...", and represent the ONLY specific threats charged, even though the body of the indictment recites some 15-20 individual bomb threat hoaxes of similar nature. Numbers 19-39 below are numbered paragraphs in the indictment.
The indictment names "partyvanpranks" and "xslowpokesx@yahoo.com", so information in this thread, above, referring to those identities, is in fact associated with this specific case.
Juvenile Arrested in Bomb Threat - March 6, 2009
The United States Attorney's Office announced that late yesterday evening, a juvenile was arrested pursuant to a federal warrant. The arrest stems from a false bomb threat directed to Purdue University on February 15 and similar threats directed to schools.
Juvenile Information Filed - May 7, 2009
... the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana wishes to further announce that a juvenile information has been filed and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. That charge alleges a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e) ...The government has filed a motion with the Court seeking to transfer the juvenile to adult status for prosecution pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 5032; that motion is pending before the Court and is scheduled for a hearing during the month of May.
Federal Grand Jury Returns Indictment - July 8, 2009
Lundeby, 16, of Oxford, N.C., was arrested by the FBI at his home in Oxford on March 6, 2009. A federal search warrant was also executed at that time. Lundeby was arrested pursuant to a juvenile criminal complaint filed in the Northern District of Indiana. ...The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a motion seeking to proceed against Lundeby as if he were an adult. The U.S. District Court in South Bend granted that motion and this indictment followed.
Lundeby must have agreed to waive the 30 day statutory timeline that pertains to "detention/trial" for a juvenile.
Putting the March and July releases together, one is invited to conclude that the arrest in March was pursuant to a criminal complaint, effectively a charging document. In other words, that he wasn't held without charge.
Now that he's been charged as an adult, fully named, etc., there is no privacy interest to protect in the earlier juvenile proceedings. His mother should move to obtain them (if she can't get them by simply paying the fee for obtaining copies), and if she won't, perhaps one of the interested press outlets (e.g., "Wired.com") will move to unseal the government formal charges, motions, etc. and his counsel's formal responses.
This is a complete and faithful recapitulation (including punctuation), not an excerpt:
39. On or about the 4th day of March, 2009, members of the conspiracy, made a series of harassing and prank calls to the FBI.
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF DETENTION
Comes now the United States of America, by United States Attorney David Capp and by Assistant United States Attorney Kenneth M. Hays, who file the Government's Response to Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Order of Detention. The government respectfully objects to reconsideration of the detention order and maintains that the original reasons to detain Ashton Lundeby still exist and that new circumstances present an even stronger case for detention. ...On March 6, 2009, the Magistrate Judge in North Carolina ordered Lundeby detained. At the hearing on the government's transfer motion the Court also reconsidered the detention order and affirmed that Order. Since this Court has already reconsidered the detention order, it is at least arguable that it cannot reconsider the detention order again, see 18 U.S.C. § 3145, and thus Lundeby's only recourse is to appeal.
Because the Grand Jury has now returned an indictment against Lundeby, the reasons to detain him are even stronger. The indictment charges him with three counts: one count of conspiracy, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; and two counts of making false bomb threats in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e). If convicted of the conspiracy count, Lundeby faces up to five years incarceration and a fine of up to $250,000; the bomb threat counts each carry up to ten years and the same fine; in total Lundeby faces up to twenty-five years incarceration and fines up to $750,000. Because of the potential penalties the return of an indictment dramatically increases the motive to flee. When this Court initially reconsidered the detention order, Lundeby only faced a juvenile disposition with juvenile detention as a potential consequence; now he faces adult prison time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.