Posted on 05/05/2009 12:32:40 PM PDT by hiredhand
Teenage Bomb Threat Suspect Was Internet Prank-Call Star - Wired (May 7, 2009)
A 16-year-old North Carolina boy arrested for allegedly making a bomb threat against Purdue University had a secret identity as a superstar in an unusual online subculture — one dedicated to making prank phone calls for a live internet audience, his mother admitted Thursday. ...Lundeby confirmed that her son was known online as "Tyrone," a celebrity in a prank-calling community that grew late last year out of the trouble-making "/b/" board on 4chan. Using the VOIP conferencing software Ventrilo, as many as 300 listeners would gather on a server run by Tyrone to listen to him and other amateur voice actors make often-crude and racist phone calls, some of which are archived on YouTube. The broadcasts were organized through websites like PartyVanPranks.com.
A former fan of Tyrone's work helped lead the police to Lundeby's son after the boy allegedly moved beyond pranks this year and began accepting donations from students eager to miss a day of school. In exchange for a little money, Tyrone would phone in a bomb threat that would shutter the donor's school for a day.
"People would pay about five dollars, and they get to submit a number," says Jason Bennett, a 19-year-old college student in Syndey, Australia. "It was getting way out of hand."
Lundeby admits that her son received donations for his prank phone calls, but denies that he made bomb threats. She says her son was with her, coming home from church, at the time of the February 15 phone call that summoned a bomb squad and evacuated the mechanical engineering building at Purdue University in Indiana.
Bennett didn't hear the Purdue call, but he says he heard Tyrone admit to that bomb threat later, and decided enough was enough. He contacted university police and began helping them get the goods on "Tyrone."
The case came to a head the night of March 5, when Tyrone made a series of rapid-fire bomb threats against five different schools around the United States. Bennett recorded the calls. ...[more]
I found some really interesting stuff. There is an mp3 of the kid voicing the threats.
What are the chances that....
Post by alibaba » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:40 am
The people who donated to xslowpokesx@yahoo.com will get caught for backing up tyrone's illegal activities? ...Post by nerox » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:08 am
Been over a week or close to it, im still not v& if they rly wanted us id imagine they'd already have us all..Post by alibaba » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:15 am
Oh i see, we would have been called the day he got caught. I personally didn't donate to his calls, i donated to be the leader of the Party Van Pranks counterstrike admin section of the vent. So i really didn't listen to his calls.Post by Blizzard » Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:20 am
we donated for the vent. we used the vent for more than just pranks. we use it for basically video games and music and shit. so even if they know bout us donating, we are not gonna get in any trouble. however anyone that requested bomb threats by email will probably get something. Tyrone did say if he got v& for this, he would have all requesters names and they would get v& too b/c he has their e-mail address.
And here is some insight into his thoughts http://feu.answers.fy8.b.yahoo.com/...
[Approx Nov 2008] Okay, I've been 16 for a month or so now, and I have had my learners permit in North Carolina for over a year now. I was supposed to get my license on December 17th, but they failed me because they said I rolled past one stop sign out of 6 on the course, this was my only problem every other stop sign was satisfactory and the rest of the test as well.What could happen to me if I am caught driving at the age of 16 with a learners permit but without a license? Will I have to wait or will I just receive a fine or what?
Here he is acting quite "not the gentleman."
Yahoo! Answers - Whats wrong with my girlfriend?
[Approx Dec 2008] My girlfriend of 6 months has stopped having sex with me, I mean it could be a number of reasons, but she told me a few weeks ago that I'm not any fun and that I take things too seriously, which I didn't quite come to understand.Her cousin from Italy is in, and she has been here for a month and a half so far and it has been terrible and she is here for 2 more weeks. I've had to be a taxi cab service for her cousin and she always tags along and every time we have a night we could possibly have sexual contact she stalls and then waits until the last second to be home so we have no time to even be alone.
I brought up how we never spend any time alone anymore and I really miss how things used to be, and that I just want it to be me and her one night and she said I was an asshole and that I was over reacting blah blah. Its been 2 weeks now and every day she asks me to do rediculous things such as bring her lunch, drop it off at school, and go home and I live 30 minutes away. I told her if I was bringing her lunch I wanted to see her. She doesn't want to spend the night at my house anymore like she used to she said it was "personal" and I had plans to take her bowling, out to dinner and out for dessert but she said she didn't like bowling. So I proposed mini-golf, and she said it was too cold. Its either her way or no way. So what do I do, take control over the relationship or keep giving in to her unreasonable demands to satisfy her and hopefully establish a sex life back?
Eh, I mean she still says I love you and everything its just ever since her cousin came shes been acting different, and acting like she never has acted before. Im just thinking maybe she is trying to "show off"
Well, the statutory recitations aren't in your realm of untrustworthy, and the rough March-May timeline is based on government statements. Likewise the location of his home and location of his detention seem to be undisputed in the general (NC/IN).
-- Do you honestly believe that Mrs. Lundeby would not only contradict what she said on April 29 in the video, but would also give the kind of information cited in the article? --
Actually, I do. Reporters have a way of truncating statements and inviting misattribution; and there are several independent sources that seem to correlate "Tyrone" the online persona with Jason the real person.
While I endeavor to "get it right" and be substantively responsive to questions/disagreements, this is just an internet chat room of sorts, and the stakes in me getting it wrong only attach to my online persona and whatever reputation it's managed to acquire.
That’s interesting. I saw the same comments in the comment section under a local newspaper article.
Ashton Lundeby Update: Less Than Meets The Eye riffs from yesterday's report out of South Bend. The comment section includes this:
I was listening to his family members on the radio this morning, and as the story "evolves" they admit, well, yeah, actually his mom DID get a call informing her when the hearings were ... Well, yeah, he DID make a threat and his mom told him to stop ... Geez. Until I see some sort of issue where the govt is overstepping its bounds, I’m going to sit and watch this one and root for the "good guys."
Comment by Big Dave — May 8, 2009 @ 6:30 am
Now, obviously these folks haven't looked up the statutes that pertain to charging and trying juveniles for federal offenses, so they miss the question about the March-May detention without starting a trial, and other possible deviations from the normal procedure. Don't get me wrong, I think the kid is a skunk, but by deviating from statutory law, the Feds may have queered their case altogether. The statute says trial w/in 30 days of detention, or dismiss.
"Not charged with a USA PATRIOT Act violation" only deals with a labeling technicality. What legal process was employed post detention to justify relocating him? What date was the 18 USC 844(e) charge filed? Has he been convicted of any felony before this? (which is a prerequisite for trying him as an adult, the way I read the law) What argument does the government forward to surmount the 30-day to trial or dismiss statute?
Feds deny Patriot Act link to teen held in South Bend - Jeff Parrott - South Bend Tribune (May 8, 2009)
Capp said he has filed a charge alleging violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 844(e), which "prohibits sending false information about an attempt to kill, injure or intimidate any individual or to unlawfully damage any building through an instrument of interstate commerce."The boy's mother has told WRAL-TV in Raleigh, N.C., that she believed he was being held under the Patriot Act, the federal law enacted after Sept. 11, 2001, that allows prosecutors to detain terrorism suspects without affording them rights typically granted to suspects, such as the right to be formally charged in a reasonable period of time.
Those two points of view are not necessarily contradictory. The answer turns on the date the 18 USC 844(e) charge was formally leveled against the defendant.
Reporters are such dumb-asses. How hard is it to look up the US Code sections relating to juvie detention? It took me about 20 minutes to find the relevant sections and link them in this thread. I have not seen that basic degree of investigation in evidence anywhere else.
The lesson is that the news is designed to MISLEAD. If you want to know what's going on, you MUST conduct independent research. If the news gets it right, its an accident.
See US v Gary Sigmund Corum (8th Cir., 2004)
The district court also recognized the telephone used by Corum was an instrumentality of interstate commerce despite the fact that it was used to place intrastate calls. ...It is well-established that telephones, even when used intrastate, are instrumentalities of interstate commerce. [cites omitted] Both intrastate and interstate telephone communications are part of an aggregate telephonic system. There is no dispute Corum used a telephone to communicate the bomb threat. Corum's use of a telephone to make his threats, even if the calls were made intrastate, was sufficient to grant federal jurisdiction over his crime pursuant to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The inintraate use of a telephone to communicate a bomb threat is an activity that falls squarely within the explicit language of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). Accordingly,when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we hold there was sufficient evidence to satisfy the interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e).
Grand Jury Indictment of Thomas A. Shay - District of Massachusetts, September 24, 1992.
The indictment is short and sweet, one count of an act on April 5, 1992. The defendant was arrested and taken into custody on September 12, 1992.
Atlanta man arrested on bomb threat charges
An Atlanta man [Michael Ezzard] was arrested Jan 27, 2009 for allegedly making bomb threats against the Atlanta Housing Authority Jan. 22 to 26, 2009.
Jan 23, 2008 USDOJ News Release of Richard Sills, Jr. indictment
Sills placed two telephone calls and sent a letter to the University of California, San Diego to warn of an apparent bomb attack on December 5, 2007. The defendant is next scheduled to be in court on January 24, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., before United States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter for arraignment.
Georgia Man [Michael Robert DeJong] Arrested for Threats to FBI Buildings
February 11, 2009 arrest - He had an initial appearance before a United States Magistrate the same day of his arrest, and remains in custody pending a probable cause and bond hearing scheduled for Tuesday, February 17, 2009.
US v RJS [a juvenile] (8th Cir, 2004)
Sentenced to 2 years probation. The appellate case is on the interstate nature of intrastate telephone calls, and basically extends the Corum case to situations where both phones are in the same building, on the same "local switch" that serves that building and connects each phone to the PSTN.
He placed a telephone call, using a telephone in the school's detention room, to a school counselor who answered on a telephone in the school secretary's office. He entered a ten digit number to place this call.
Bomb Threats in Schools - Center for Problem Oriented Policing
Data on bomb incidents (any event in which an actual bomb or bomb look-alike is involved) and bomb threats (any event in which a bomb threat is communicated that may or may not involve an actual bomb or bomb look-alike) are limited. The FBI reports that close to 5 percent of bombing incidents in the United States in 1999 (the most recent year for which FBI data are available) were targeted at schools. It is unknown what portion of these incidents involved threats. For the period January 1990 to February 28, 2002 the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recorded 1,055 incidents of bombs being placed in school premises.1 Again, we do not know what proportion of these incidents involved threats. For the most part, however, it is probably reasonable to conclude that bomb incidents involving real bombs in schools are relatively rare, though they have been with us for quite some time.†Furthermore, relatively few bomb explosions are preceded by a warning or threat to officials. Of the 1,055 bomb incidents in schools reported by ATF, only 14 were accompanied by a warning to school or other authorities. ...There are no national statistics on bomb threats as such, though they are more common than bomb incidents. However, we can say that they are not evenly distributed throughout school districts: rashes of bomb threats can occur in particular localities. For example, in the 1997-8 school year, one Maryland school district reported 150 bomb threats and 55 associated arrests. The South Carolina Department of Education in its 1999-2000 school incident crime report lists "disturbing schools," which includes bomb threats, hoaxes, false fire alarms etc., among its 10 top crimes, second only to simple assaults. During the past five years, many states have enacted severe penalties for issuing false bomb threats, which reflects the perception that the incidence of bomb threats is widespread.
Wow. That's alot of bomb threats. 55 arrests in one year, in one school district alone. The last link there is an informative read on the problem in general. Obviously, the range of penalty is very diverse. The handling of Ashton Lundeby's case to date seems to put his treatment at the "severe penalty" end of the spectrum. My sense is that the treatment in any given case is driven by random factors; each investigator and prosecutor has independent unreviewable discretion, to the extent the prosecution is within the law.
Tanks!
I don't think it's useful as a parallel (because of substantial differences - the e-mail account in Alaska, indicted in TN; indicted/arraigned in a 2 day period; free pending trial), but here is a summary of how the "indict/detain" process worked:
http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/kernellarrest.pdf
David C. Kernell, 20, was indicted by a federal grand jury ... Kernell turned himself into federal authorities for arrest and will be arraigned today before the Honorable C. Clifford Shirley, United States Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of Tennessee. The single count indictment, returned on October 7, 2008, and unsealed today ...
UT student David Kernell pleads not guilty
October 8, 2008: David Christopher Kernell walked into federal court this morning in handcuffs, shackles and tennis shoes to plead not guilty to hacking Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account.He can stay out of jail for now as long as he stays off his computer. [Literally, it seems. He is not allowed to own a computer and can use the Internet only for checking e-mail and doing class work]
We know that Ashton wasn't indicted in NC, because the "juvenile information has been filed and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana." Link to PDF of the DOJ May 7, 2009 Press Release
It also appears that the "crime" of Kernell is substantially less weighty than the crime of Lundeby (I think so), which would press in favor of much less government pressure against the defendant.
Palin Email Hack Trial Delayed Until 2009 - PC Magazine
A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee moved the trial of David Kernell from December to May 19, 2009 after the government said it needed more time to sift through the evidence. ...The government said Kernell's legal team raised no objections to delaying the trial. Kernell's lawyers are, however, trying to have the case thrown out. In an October 27 filing, they argued that the government was trying to convict Kernell of a felony when he was guilty of a misdemeanor, if anything.
Kernell was charged with accessing a computer without authorization and obtaining information, which is usually considered a misdemeanor.
There have been no sucessful terrorist attacks on US soil since the Patriot Act became law.
The speedy trial provision of Sec. 5036 is not triggered until the juvenile is charged by information and thus obtains the status of an "alleged delinquent."7 Thus, the proper interpretation of the plain language of the applicable provisions reveals that until a juvenile has been charged by an information, pursuant to Sec. 5032, with the commission of an act of delinquency which would have been a crime if committed by an adult, pursuant to Sec. 5031, then the juvenile is not an "alleged delinquent who is in detention pending trial" for the purpose of invoking the thirty-day speedy trial provision of Sec. 5036.US v. Juvenile Male, 74 F.3d 526 (4th Cir., 1996)
B. The Speedy Trial Act is inapplicable to juvenile delinquency proceedings, which have their own speedy trial provision. See 18 U.S.C. § 5036 (speedy trial provision of the Juvenile Delinquency Act).
Still, this section of the CRM is interesting for how it handles pre-charge detention.
The information or indictment must be filed within 30 days from the date of arrest or service of the summons. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). Trial must commence within 70 days from the date the information or indictment was filed, or from the date the defendant appears before an officer of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
Another point I've bumped into in research has to do with the notion of joint jurisdiction, where an offense of both a state and a federal offense. The Feds are required to "certify" that they should take the defendant, over the state.
Criminal Resource Manual 41 - Certification
In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the appropriate local prosecutor should be briefed on the facts of the case, and a determination made as to whether he/she is accepting or refusing prosecutorial responsibilities in the matter. If a local prosecutor refuses to assume jurisdiction over the juvenile, federal prosecutors may wish to consider whether it would be helpful to attach a confirming letter from the local prosecutor to the certification filed with the court.
There are certain crimes where the Feds easily get the case. 18 USC 844(e) is NOT enumerated as grounds for quick certification, see 18 USC 5032(3) for the list. This is a complex run of statutory prose, and it describes "certification" (feds take the case over the state) and "transfer" (try as an adult). The bias is for the prosecution to be handled by the state, but juvenile bomb hoax cases are commonly handled in federal courts.
CRM Section 9-8.000 - Juveniles
With the amount of publicity this case has obtained, the details of the detention, timing of filing of the information, outcome of the motion to "transfer" (try as an adult) and outcome of any motion to dismiss on failure to obtain a speedy trial are most likely going to come out.
I think my posts here capture all of the issues, albeit not in any decent summary form.
This ain’t got nuttin to do with the patriot act. The little shit made bomb threats and has been charged for that.
Thanks for the correction/update on Kernell, for what it's worth in evaluating the Lundeby case (to show the vast DIFFERENCE in treatment)
As for my research into the statutes, regulations and pertinent case law, I tend to do that when a case strikes my interest. News reporters and sideline commentators are rarely correct or complete.
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.