Date post: | 08-Aug-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | robert-wilonsky |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 30
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
1/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION___________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '' No. 3:12-CR-317-L
v. ' No. 3:12-CR-413-L' No. 3:13-CR-030-L
BARRETT LANCASTER BROWN '
GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO CONTINUANCE
1. The United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, by and through the
undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, files its opposition to the continuance
requested by the defense.
BROWNS POSITION SUMMARIZED
2. Brown complains that he has been unable to prepare for a September 2013 trial due
to the volume of discovery. Brown requests the trials be continued until February 2014.
GOVERNMENTS POSITION SUMMARIZED
3. The government requests that this Honorable Court deny Browns motion for a
continuance. Browns cases have not been deemed complex, and therefore Browns right
to a speedy trial is at issue. Brown failed to address Browns right to or waiver of a speedy
trial.
4. The defense has had adequate time to prepare for trial. Brown has had the bulk of
discovery for at least seven (7) months, since approximately February 1, 2013. Browns
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 13 PageID 307
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
2/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 2
attorney failed to explain why seven (7) months was insufficient in a non-complex case to
prepare for trial.
5. Knowing that the trials were set in September 2013, the new defense team accepted
representation of Brown on May 1, 2013, and stated to the United States Magistrate Judge
that they were confident that [they would] be able to get up to speed and anticipate[d]
trying the case on time.
6. Brown now requests a trial date in February 2013. The undersigned is unavailable
in February 2013 to try these cases. If the Court deems a continuance necessary and
appropriate in light of Browns right to a speedy trial, the government requests, in the
alternative, that the following weeks be considered when setting these matters for trial:
March 10, 2014March 17, 2014April 28, 2014Any week in May 2014
7. The undersigned conferred with the defense, and they have no conflicts on these
dates. The government estimates that its case in chief in the 3:12-317-L trial should last
no more than three days. The government estimates that its case in chief in the second
trial (3:12-413-L and 3:13-CR-030-L) should last no more than eight days. The
government will file a list of its conflicts in camera.
SPEEDY TRIAL
8. A defendants trial must commence within 70 days of the date the indictment was
filed, or from the defendants initial appearance, whichever is later. See 18 U.S.C.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 13 PageID 308
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
3/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 3
3161(c)(1). Browns cases have not been declared complex, nor has any party moved to
declare the cases complex. Therefore the Speedy Trial exclusions pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) do not apply. Per 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(B), the delays associated
with respect to other charges against the defendant were excluded from this 70 day period
(i.e. the Indictments returned in 3:12-CR-413-L and 3:13-CR-030-L).
9. Per 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(A) the time during which Browns mental capabilities
were being examined were excluded from this 70 days. The competency hearing in
3:12-CR-317-L was held on January 30, 2013, and the courts order finding Brown
competent to stand trial was filed on February 4, 2013 (Document 30). The government
contends that Browns speedy trial clock did not start to run until February 4, 2013.
10. Any delay resulting from pretrial motions, or from any proceeding concerning the
defendant that is actually under advisement by the court is excluded from the 70 day
period. See 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(D) and (H). Per the docket in 3:12-CR-317-L, the
following motions and/or actions occurred:
a. 2/13/2013 Governments Motion (Document 34). (2/4 through 2/13 = 9 days)Court denied the motion without prejudice on 3/29/2013 (Document 41) butordered a review of the matter, and later referred the matter to the MagistrateCourt (see e. below).The Magistrate Court orally denied the Motion on May 1, 2013, but did notissue the Order until May 30, 2013 (Document 64). (106 days tolled).
b. 2/26/2013 Governments Motion for Reciprocal Discovery (Document 37).The Motion is pending a resolution.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 13 PageID 309
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
4/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 4
c. 2/26/2013 Governments Motion Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2 (Document 38).The Motion is pending a resolution.
d. 3/4/2013 Defendants Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial from May 6, 2013 toAugust 2013 (Document 40).
Court granted on March 6, 2013, and set trials for September 3, 2013 andSeptember 23, 2013.
e. 4/16/2013 Court remanded matter to Magistrate Judge Stickney to determineBrowns need for appointed counsel.
Magistrate Judge Stickney set matter for status conference on May 1, 2013,and ultimately issued an order on May 30, 2013. (see a. above).
f. 5/1/2013 Defendants Motion to Substitute Counsel (Document 56 and 57).Court granted Motion on May 7, 2013 (Document 63). (6 days tolled).
g. 6/18/2013 Governments Motion for a Protective Order (Document 65).Court granted Motion on 6/20/2013 (Document 66). (2 days tolled).
h. 6/21/2013 Defendants Motion to Continue DeadlinesCourt granted Motion on 7/3/2013 (Document 68). (12 days tolled).
i. 7/9/2013 Governments Motion (Document 69).Court granted Motion on 7/9/2013 (Document 70). (0 days tolled).
j. 7/12/2013 Government Motion (Document 41).Court granted Motion on 7/15/2013 (Document 72). (3 days tolled).
k. 7/16/2013 Governments Motion (Document 73).Court granted Motion on 7/17/2013 (Document 72). (1 day tolled).
l. 7/19/2013 Defendants Motion (Document 75).
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 4 of 13 PageID 310
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
5/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 5
Court granted Motion on 7/22/2013 (Document 76). (3 days tolled).
m.7/31/2013 Defendants Motion to Continue Trial (DocumentThe Motion is pending a resolution.
11. The government summarizes its interpretation of Browns speedy trial issue:
Date Action Days Tolled DaysRun
Total
Days Run
Feb. 4, 2013 see 9. Speedy Trialclock begins to run -Court finds Browncompetent
Feb. 13, 2013 see 10(a) and (e)Governments Motionis not resolved fullyuntil the MagistrateCourt issues its orderon May 30, 2013
106 days
9 days 9 days
Feb. 26, 2013 see 10(b). Since these motions arestill pending, the clockmay be tolled indefinitely.
June 18, 2013 -
June 20, 2013
see 10(g). If not tolled indefinitely
due to 10(b), 2 days *19 days 28 days
June 21, 2013 -July 3, 2013
see 10(h). If not tolled indefinitelydue to 10(b), 12 days
1 day 29 days
July 12, 2013 -July 15, 2013
see 10(j). If not tolled indefinitelydue to 10(b), 3 days
9 days 38 days
July 16, 2013 -July 17, 2013
see 10(k). If not tolled indefinitelydue to 10(b), 1 day
1 day 39 days
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 5 of 13 PageID 311
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
6/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 6
Date Action Days Tolled DaysRun
Total
Days Run
July 19, 2013 -July 22, 2013
see 10(l). If not tolled indefinitelydue to 10(b), 3 days
2 days 41 days
July 31, 2013 see 10(m). Pending
9 days
50 days (asof July 31,2013)
*For purposes of this chart, the government began counting from May 30, 2013.
12. If the Court grants Browns motion to continue the trial dates, the government
requests that this Court find that only 9 days have elapsed on the Speedy Trial Act, that
being the length of time between this court finding Brown competent to stand trial and the
date the government filed its pretrial motions which are still pending. In the alternative,
the government requests that this Court (1) require Brown to waive his rights to a speedy
trial, and (2) make appropriate findings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161.
BROWN FAILS TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
13. Browns cases have not been deemed complex. In his motion, Brown has not
produced or articulated his waiver of his speedy trial rights.
INACCURACIES IN BROWNS MOTION
14. In his motion, Brown identified four categories of discovery: (1) the 2 Terabyte
hard drive containing most of the data from the electronic devices seized during the search
warrants at Browns and his mothers residence, (2) DVDs containing digital evidence
(either obtained digitally from the source of the data or by scanning from paper
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 6 of 13 PageID 312
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
7/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 7
documents), (3) the search warrant documents, and (4) the transcript of a court proceeding
(Browns initial appearance, probable cause, and detention hearing).1
15. The government produced item #2 to the defense in January 2013 and #1 to the
defense on February 1, 2013. The government understands its obligation to continue to
produce any newly obtained items obtained during its preparation for trial. The search
warrant documents (Item #3), while discoverable, did not constitute evidence as is
commonly associated with discovery. The government produced the seven search2
warrants in a timely manner for the defense to review. The production of the search
warrant documents also constituted an early production ofJencks. Item #4 is not an item
of discovery. (See 16).
16. Brown wrongfully claimed that the initial appearance, probable cause, and
detention hearing transcript (Item #4) is a category of discovery. Brown wrongfully
stated that it was the governments obligation to provide him a copy of a transcript of a
court proceeding that had not yet been transcribed. Brown is wrong on both points.
Brown and his prior attorney of record were present and participated at the initial
appearance, probable cause, and detention hearing. If Brown wanted the transcript of a
court proceeding, it was his responsibility to order the same from the court. In this case
the proceedings were sealed, but Brown had the ability and responsibility to file a motion
1 The defense failed to identify other already items produced by the government, including but notlimited, to all the forensic reports, the chain of custody documents, Browns statements, Browns criminalhistory, the recorded jail calls from Mansfield and FCI Fort Worth, Browns emails from FCI Fort Worth,and visitation records.2 The seven search warrants related to the searches of 2 different physical locations and two differentsources of data. The affidavits for the search warrants contained substantially the same information.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 7 of 13 PageID 313
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
8/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 8
to unseal and transcribe the proceedings, if he wanted a transcript. Since the hearing date
(September 13, 2012) to the filing date of his motion (July 31, 2013), Brown failed to
exercise due diligence and failed to order the transcript from the Magistrate Judges court.
17. If the government had such a transcript, it would normally turn over the transcript to
the defense pursuant toJencks, and that production would not happen until a day before the
witness testified pursuant to local practice. In this case, the government did what the
defense could have done, it submitted a request for the transcript to be conditionally
unsealed and transcribed. However, the government has agreed to assist the defense and
produce this particularJencks material early; that is, to provide a copy of its transcript to
the defense, once the same has been transcribed and delivered to the undersigned.
DISCOVERY AND DUE DILIGENCE
18. The defense contends in its motion that they are preparing for this case with due
diligence. The government disagrees. The current defense team failed to consult with
the undersigned prior to agreeing to represent Brown. It has been the undersigneds
experience that defense counsel commonly confer with the prosecution to ascertain the
amount of discovery expected in the case.
19. The current defense team has not meet in person with the prosecution team to
discuss the discovery, the cases, or the upcoming trials. It has been the undersigneds
experience that defense counsel commonly meet in person on numerous occasions with the
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 8 of 13 PageID 314
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
9/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 9
prosecution to facilitate the discovery process. The undersigned has extended numerous
invitations to the defense to meet with them regarding the discovery and upcoming trials.3
20. The bulk of the discovery was in the possession of the prior defense counsel since
approximately February 1, 2013. Browns new defense team has been representing
Brown since the hearing on May 1, 2013. In his motion, the new defense team did not
retrieve Browns file from the prior attorney until sometime in June 2013.
21. The current defense team describes the discovery in Browns cases as substantial.
While the 2 Terabyte hard drive contains a substantial amount of data (i.e. less than 2
Terabytes), it pales in comparison to other more complex cases tried in this district with
hundreds of Terabytes of data.
PUBLICITY
22. Further delays in the trial date will allow the defense to continue to defy the United
States Magistrate Judges admonishment on May 1, 2013, that being not to try the case in
the media. The government is aware of dozens of instances (before and after the
admonishment) wherein Brown has or others on his behalf have solicited the services of
the media or media-types to discuss his cases. Since May 1, 2013, the government has
reason to believe that Browns attorney coordinates and/or approves the use of the media.
Most of the publicity about Brown thus far contain gross fabrications and substantially
false recitations of facts and law which may harm both the government and the defense
3 Browns prior counsel and forensic examiner met with the government in February 2013, to discussthe evidence contained in the 2 Terabyte hard drive.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 9 of 13 PageID 315
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
10/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 10
during jury selection. The following are a few examples of the
defense-solicited/encouraged publicity.
23. On March 7, 2013, from the Mansfield Jail, Brown telephoned a person with
Vice.com on several occasions, wherein the person interviewed Brown regarding his case
and Project PM. The article was made public on March 26, 2013 at vice.com.
24. In March 2013, from the Mansfield Jail, Brown telephoned a person with The
Guardian, wherein the person interviewed Brown regarding his case. The article was
made public on March 21, 2013.
25. In April 2013, Brown had numerous conversations with an individual who wanted
to do a documentary on Brown and Project PM. In June 2013 and July 2013, the
documentary was being worked on, but has yet to be made public.
26. On May 3, 2013, the self-proclaimed founder and director of the website
www.freebarrettbrown.org told Brown on the telephone that he coordinated all media
through Browns legal counsel. He told Brown that RT America requested to do a
program about Brown, and there were inquiries from dallasnews.com. Brown confirmed
that he and his attorney have a media strategy, and acknowledged that the attorney will be
reviewing the possibility of a documentary. Browns friend produced and made public
two articles about Brown and his criminal cases, one on July 13, 2013 and the other on July
31, 2013.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 10 of 13 PageID 316
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
11/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 11
27. Browns friend confirmed in a statement to the press (posted on August 7, 2013)
that Browns lawyers had discussions with a specific media person to arrange an in-person
interview with Brown at the jail.
28. On June 6, 2013, Brown told a person from the Rolling Stone to do a story on
Brown, and instructed the person to coordinate with his attorney.
29. During July 2013 and August 2013, Brown discussed with other persons the
probability of Esquire, Rolling Stone, and/or Vice making certain articles public. Brown
commented that his attorney was involved.
30. Between May 1, 2013 and current date, part of the media strategy included
soliciting comments from journalists, authors, and other high profile individuals to
comment publically about Browns criminal charges, said public comments being posted
at http://freebarrettbrown.org/supporters/.
31. Several times a week since his incarceration, Brown requested another person to
search the Internet for Browns name and to tell Brown what comments had been made
about him or articles had been written about him. Brown also requested that the person
access Twitter.com and tell Brown how many times those commentaries or articles had
been retweeted.
32. Brown has shown his intent to continue to manipulate the public through press and
social media comments, in defiance of the admonishment by the United States Magistrate
Judge. Based on the articles already published, there is a substantial likelihood that
extrajudicial commentary made by or condoned by the defense will undermine a fair
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 11 of 13 PageID 317
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
12/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 12
trial. United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 428 (5th Cir. 2000). Whether or not the
trial is continued, the government requests this Honorable Court to instruct the parties to
refrain from making any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper,
magazine, internet (including, but not limited to, bloggers), or other media organization
about this case, other than matters of public record. United States v. Hill, 420 Fed.Appx.
407, 410 (5th Cir. 2011), United States v. Davis, 904 F.Supp 564 565 (E.D.La. 1995).4
CONCLUSION
33. The government respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny the defenses
second motion to continue the trial date; or in the alternative, after (1) finding good cause
for the continuance, (2) finding that the speedy trial act will accommodate a continuance,
and (3) restricting the parties use of the media, continue the trial to the weeks of March 10,
2014, March 17, 2014, April 28, 2014, or any week in May 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
SARAH R. SALDAAUNITED STATES ATTORNEY
S/ Candina S. HeathCANDINA S. HEATHAssistant United States AttorneyState of Texas Bar No. 093474501100 Commerce Street, 3rd FloorDallas, Texas 75242Tel: 214.659.8600 Fax: [email protected]
4 Upon request, the government can provide to the Court more detail on the above examples, as wellas additional examples.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 12 of 13 PageID 318
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
13/30
Government's Opposition to Continuance Page 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 7, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoingdocument with the clerk for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the
electronic case filing (ECF) system of the court. The ECF system sent a "Notice ofElectronic Filing" to Browns attorneys of record Ahmed Ghappour, Charles Swift, andMarlo Cadeddu, who consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this documentby electronic means.
S/ Candina S. HeathCANDINA S. HEATHAssistant United States Attorney
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 81 Filed 08/07/13 Page 13 of 13 PageID 319
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
14/30
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No: 3:12-CR-317-Lv. No: 3:12-CR-413-L
No: 3:13-CR-030-LBARRETT LANCASTER BROWN
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE
BARRETT LANCASTER BROWN, through his counsel, pursuant to L.Cr.R.47.1(f),
respectfully request leave to file replies in support of the following motions:
1. Defendants Motion to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines. 3:12-CR-317-L, Dkt. 80.2. Defendants Motion to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines. 3:12-CR-413-L, Dkt. 43.3. Defendants Motion to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines. 3:13-CR-030-L, Dkt. 43.
Counsel have received and reviewed the Governments responses to these motions
and seek leave to reply to the arguments therein as the Governments responses (1) introduce
a new issue; (2) rely on case law that is distinguishable from the present case, and (3) are
predicated on inaccurate assumptions which the defendants must explain in order for this
Court to fairly rule on the issues raised in their motions.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant respectfully request that the Court
grant the defendants motion for leave to file the above replies.
Respectfully submitted,
-s-Ahmed Ghappour .
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID 320
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
15/30
2
AHMED GHAPPOURPro Hac Vice
Civil Rights ClinicUniversity of Texas School of Law
727 East Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705415-598-8508512-232-0900 (facsimile)
CHARLES SWIFTPro Hac Vice
Swift & McDonald, P.S.1809 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1108
Seattle, WA 98101206-441-3377
206-224-9908 (facsimile)[email protected]
MARLO P. CADEDDU
TX State Bar No. 24028839Law Office of Marlo P. Cadeddu, P.C.
3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700Dallas, TX 75204
214.744.3000214.744.3015 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Barrett Lancaster Brown
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I certify that on August 8, 2013, I conferred with Ms. Candina Heath, counsel for the
government and she is in agreement with the relief requested.
/s/ Ahmed GhappourAHMED GHAPPOUR
/s/ Charles Swift
CHARLES SWIFT/s/ Marlo P. CadedduMARLO P. CADEDDU
Attorneys for Barrett Brown
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 321
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
16/30
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that today, August 8, 2013, I filed the instant motion using the Northern Districtof Texass electronic filing system (ECF) which will send a notice of filing to all counsel of
record.
/s/ Ahmed GhappourAHMED GHAPPOUR
/s/ Charles SwiftCHARLES SWIFT
/s/ Marlo P. CadedduMARLO P. CADEDDU
Attorneys for Barrett Lancaster Brown
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82 Filed 08/08/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 322
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
17/30
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No: 3:12-CR-317-Lv. No: 3:12-CR-413-L
No: 3:13-CR-030-LBARRETT LANCASTER BROWN
REPLY TO GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES
BARRETT LANCASTER BROWN, through his counsel, respectfully submits this
memorandum in Reply to the governments Response in Opposition to his Motion to Continue
Trial and Pretrial Deadlines.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Barrett Lancaster Brown moved to continue trial and pretrial deadlines on July
31, 2013 explaining that more time is required in order to adequately prepare his defense in light
of the ongoing forensic processing of the Electronic Stored Information (ESI) images. The
government opposed on August 8, 2013, and, in its Opposition requested the Court issue a Gag
Order to [i]nstruct the parties to refrain from making any statement to members of any
television, radio, newspaper, magazine, internet (including, but not limited to, bloggers), or other
media organization about this case, other than matters of public record. GB at 12. For the
reasons articulated in Points I and II, below, the Court should grant Mr. Browns continuance
and deny the Governments request.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID 323
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
18/30
2
I.
THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE CONTINUANCE
A. A Continuance is Needed in Order to Process and Review Forensic Evidence.As stated in Mr. Browns motion, the basis of Mr. Browns request for a continuance is
that more time is required by the forensic vendor in order to adequately prepare the Electronic
Stored Information (ESI) images for attorney review. The ESI images contain, inter alia, data
from Mr. Browns laptops, which are directly relevant to all charges in all indictments, in
addition to being at the center of conduct charged in the 12:CR:413 and 13:CR:030 Indictments.
Thus, Mr. Brown cannot prepare for trial without reviewing the content of the ESI images still
being processed.1. However, Mr. Brown cannot access the content of the ESI images, let alone
conduct a meaningful review, until processing is complete. As stated in the moving papers, the
forensic vendor estimates that processing the ESI images will take an additional two months
time. Given the amount of material, simply having the material ready for review, does not mean
that it has been reviewed. As previously indicated, counsel estimates one month of review from
completion of the processing.
There is no reason to believe that substitution of counsel has delayed this case
significantly, if at all. When counsel entered the case on May 1, 2013, the ESI images were still
being processed by the FPD Investigator, who indicated repeated delays in the ESI processing
1
While the government is correct that the size of the ESI in this case pales in comparison to
other more complex cases tried in this district with hundreds of Terabytes of data, GB at 9, thatdoes not change the fact that undersigned counsel cannot prepare for trial without reviewing the
ESI.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 10 PageID 324
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
19/30
3
due to viruses and malware present within the medium, in addition to time constraints caused by
the furlough.2
As stated in Mr. Browns motion, counsel for the defendant has worked diligently to
prepare for trial. The government disagrees, arguing that [t]he bulk of the discovery was in the
possession of the prior defense counsel since approximately February 1, 2013, and the new
defense team did not retrieve Browns file from the prior attorney until sometime in June 2013.
To be clear, counsel conferred with the Office of the Federal Public Defender (FPD) prior to, and
on, May 1, 2013, and requested the discovery materials in their possession. The defense has
diligently catalogued the discovery received in June of 2013, and continues to review that which
is accessible. As noted, simply because the ESI images have been received does not mean that
they can be accessed. The ESI images must beprocessedby a forensics expert before counsel
can conduct a meaningful review. Simply put, the defense cannot review the bulk of the
discovery until it has been processed.
The government also argues that the current defense team has not meet [SIC] in person
with the prosecution team to discuss the discovery, the cases, or the upcoming trials, GB at 8
(emphasis added). To the contrary, counsel for Mr. Brown has conferred, corresponded and had
telephonic meetings with the government on numerous occasions regarding various case issues,
including discovery and other pretrial issues. For instance, on June 25, 2013, counsel emailed
the government indicating that he had received discovery from the FPD, that he had catalogued
the files that were in an accessible format, and requested the search warrants and related
affidavits in this case. Again, on July 1, 2013 counsel sent the government a discovery letter.
See Defense Motion to Continue, Ex. A. As noted, the government did not reply to that letter
2
As noted by Magistrate Stickney, counsels acceptance of this case has relieved the public of a
significant financial burden.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 3 of 10 PageID 325
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
20/30
4
until July 12, 2013, and did not produce the search warrants until July 15, 2013. Between July
15, 2013, and the filing date of the motion at issue, July 31, 2013, the defense has exchanged
several emails and telephone calls with the government. Undersigned counsel welcomes the
opportunity to meet government counsel in person and negotiate additional pre-trial issues, once
discovery review is completed.
Finally, no prejudice will result to the government by continuing this trial. In addition,
the government continues to provide discovery, the most recent batch of which was received
between July 29-31, and contained electronic data.
B.
Speedy Trial
The governments Opposition states Brown failed to address Browns right to or waiver
of a speedy trial. As addressed in the moving papers, a district court may continue a case when:
the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a whole, is not sounusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), [but] would . . . deny counsel
for the defendant or the attorney for the government the reasonable time necessaryfor effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).
The government argues that Browns attorney failed to explain whyseven months was
insufficient to in a non-complex case to prepare for trialId. at 1-2. In fact, as articulated above,
and in the moving papers, the defense has worked diligently since appearing in the case three
months ago. The hurdle faced by the defense at this juncture does not pertain to theirreview of
the discovery, rather the processing time required in order to make the ESI images accessible for
review. As such, the Speedy Trial Act provides the basis to exempt the case from the Acts time
limitations in order to allow defense counsel to adequately prepare the defense.
Alternatively, Mr. Brown waives his speedy trial rights. Counsel has confirmed his
waiver orally, and intends on submitting a signed waiver by August 20, 2013.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 4 of 10 PageID 326
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
21/30
5
II.
THE COURT SHOULD DENY
THE GOVERNMENTS REQUEST FOR A GAG ORDER
Mr. Browns Motion to Continue is not in any way related to the governments
implication that he intends to use the expanded time in order to try the case in the media, nor
does the evidence reflect as much.3
Upon entry into the case, counsel has advised Mr. Brown
that making statements about the charges he faces is not in his best interests. Counsel has also
advised Mr. Brown as to the Courts Protective Order, in addition to the guidelines imposed by
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), and its progeny, including United States v.
Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 430 (5th Cir. 2000). Mr. Brown has complied.
As such, a gag order is not warranted in this case, for several reasons. First, as detailed
below, Mr. Brown has made no statements to the media since undersigned counsel appeared on
the case. Second, Mr. Browns counsel have not made any statements to the media, except to
state matters of public record or to explain the steps of the legal process. Third, although Mr.
Browns purported associates may be making statements about this case, those statements were
not attributed to (and, at least as of May 1, 2013, are not properly attributable to) Mr. Brown. Mr.
Brown and his counsel are well aware of the importance of maintaining a large potential jury
pool in the Northern District of Texas, and at least since May 1, 2013, neither Mr. Brown nor his
counsel have engaged in any acts that could even arguably be characterized as effectively
3
At the outset, counsel objects to the governments use of a Response in Opposition to request a
gag order from the Court, noting that the government has not conferred with counsel. To theextent the Court is inclined to grant the governments cross-motion, the Defense would request
an opportunity to fully brief the matter.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 5 of 10 PageID 327
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
22/30
6
undermining or interfering with the selection of impartial jury members. Therefore, the
governments request for a gag order should be flatly rejected as unwarranted.
The cases cited by the government all includedstatements regarding thespecific evidence
in the case. See United States v. Hill, 420 F. App'x 407, 412 (5th Cir. 2011) (defendant
referenced a clear statistical and anecdotal body of evidence);Brown, 218 F.3d at 429
(defendants released wiretap recordings to press and participated in extensive interviews about
the same). By contrast, the government does not cite anystatements as the basis for their request
for a gag order. Rather, the government admonishes the defense for condoning media
coverage of Mr. Brown, GB at 11, and argues that the defense coordinates and/or approves of
the use of the media. GB at 9. In support, the government recites a number of interviews
granted by Mr. Brown before undersigned counsel entered the case,4
GB at 10 ( 23, 24), and a
series of allegations that are irrelevant and do not merit a gag order.
For instance, the government states that Brownsfriendconfirmed in a statement to the
press (posted on August 7, 2013) that lawyers had discussions with a specific media person to
arrange an in-person interview with Brown in jail. GB at 11 (27). Presumably, the specific
media person referenced by the government is Michael Hastings, a journalist, friend and
colleague of Mr. Brown who passed away on June 18, 2013 in Los Angeles California. Counsel
does not dispute that Mr. Hastings, as with many other members of the media, contacted counsel
seeking an in-person interview with Mr. Brown. To counsels knowledge, Mr. Hastings did not
visit or conduct an in-person interview Mr. Brown before his death.
The government also references numerous conversations in April 2013 between Mr.
Brown and an individual who wantedto do a documentary on Brown. GB at 10 (25).
4
The government does not recite statements made by Mr. Brown in these interviews that it
claims are in violation ofGentile, Brown, et al.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 6 of 10 PageID 328
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
23/30
7
Counsel has received numerous requests from members of the media, including documentary
filmmakers, to interview Mr. Brown. Counsel has advised members of the media seeking an in-
person interview with Mr. Brown that there is a Protective Order in place, that members of the
media would need authorization from all the relevant parties including the authorities at
Mansfield Correctional, and that Mr. Brown would be advised not to answer any questions
unless submitted in advance, and in writing, so that counsel could screen questions to comply
with the Courts Protective Order, Gentile,Brown, et al.
After being advised of these conditions, no media outlet has conducted an in-person or
telephonic interview with Mr. Brown that counsel is aware of.
5
One media outlet, Rolling Stone
magazine, has complied with counsels conditions and received comments by Mr. Brown that
were well within the standards set forth in Gentile, Brown, et al. Additionally, counsel for Mr.
Brown has made brief comments about the case comprising general statements about the nature
of the allegations and the defense, and statements of matters of public record,Brown, 218 F.3d
at 429-30.6
Indeed, an inspection of the visitor log at Mansfield Correctional should reveal that no
members of the media, including Mr. Hastings, or a documentary filmmaker have met with
Mr. Brown since counsels entry in the case. Thus, the governments assertion that counsel is
coordinating prison visits by journalists, documentary filmmakers and other members of the
media to manipulate the media is without merit.
5
One media outlet, Rolling Stone magazine, has solicited and received comments by Mr. Brown
that were well within the standards set forth in Gentile, Brown, et al.6
Mr. Swifts statements were limited to those made immediately after his appearance. Mr.
Ghappour has also made limited statements, including a comment to Rolling Stone magazine fora forthcoming publication. Both Mr. Swift and Mr. Ghappours comments were made in full
accordance with the standards set by Gentile, Brown, et al.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 7 of 10 PageID 329
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
24/30
8
The government also states that most of the publicity about Brown thus far contain gross
fabrications and substantially false recitations of facts and law which may harm both the
government and the defense during jury selection. GB at 9-10. Rather than citing to actual
misconduct, the government makes a leap that counsel condones false coverage. This is not a
basis to issue a gag order. See United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 430 (citing to Smith v.
Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974)) (A restraining order of any type is unconstitutionally vague if it
fails to give clear guidance regarding the type of speech that an individual may not utter.) This
cases profile, on its own, should have no bearing on the Courts disposition in this matter.
Members of the media are interested in Mr. Brown. Their interest long precedes counsels
involvement in the case, and the case itself.7
To the contrary, the media interest in this case,
coupled with Mr. Browns radio silence and counsels minimal commenting on general matters,
only underscores that the governments request for a gag order is without merit.
The government also makes several references to Mr. Browns friends and
supporters. GB at 10 ( 26, 30). While counsel was retained by the Barrett Brown Legal
Defense Fund, it was made clear at the onset of the case that the Fund could not have any input
on Mr. Browns legal matters. Similarly, counsel cannot and does not control Mr. Browns
supporters. Nor would relief requested by the government bind members of the public
including Mr. Browns supporters, and the media. As such, the governments statements
regarding First Amendment activities by Mr. Browns supporters, and other members of the
public, are irrelevant and should have no bearing on the issue. GB at 26, 30.
Finally, the government states that [d]uring July 2013 and August 2013, Brown
discussed with other persons the probability of Esquire, Rolling Stone, and/or Vice making
7
Prior to his arrest, Mr. Brown made frequent media appearances on networks such as MSNBC,
and Fox News, and was a featured commentator in several recent documentary films.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 8 of 10 PageID 330
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
25/30
9
certain articles public. Brown commented that his attorney was involved. Indeed, Mr. Brown
is a journalist that has published in Vanity Fair, the Guardian, Huffington Post, and other media
outlets. Mr. Brown continues to write op-eds for publication. See, e.g., The Guardian, The
cyber-intelligence complex and its useful idiots, Barrett Brown (July 1, 2013) (Exhibit A).
However, Mr. Browns publications do not discuss the case at all. Mr. Brown has a First
Amendment right to speak and publish on matters unrelated to his case. Brown, 218 F.3d at 429
(citingProcunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)) (It is axiomatic that the limitation on First
Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is essential to the protection of the particular
governmental interest involved). Nonetheless, Mr. Brown sends all publications to counsel for
review to ensure that the publications are not case related. Therefore, any mischaracterization of
Mr. Browns publications as misconduct should have no bearing on the issue before the Court.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Mr. Brown respectfully request that the Court
grant the defendants Motion to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines, and deny the
governments request for a gag order.
Respectfully submitted,
-s-Ahmed Ghappour .AHMED GHAPPOUR
Pro Hac ViceCivil Rights Clinic
University of Texas School of Law727 East Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705415-598-8508
512-232-0900 (facsimile)[email protected]
CHARLES SWIFT
Pro Hac ViceSwift & McDonald, P.S.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 9 of 10 PageID 331
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
26/30
10
1809 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1108Seattle, WA 98101
206-441-3377206-224-9908 (facsimile)
MARLO P. CADEDDUTX State Bar No. 24028839
Law Office of Marlo P. Cadeddu, P.C.3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204214.744.3000
214.744.3015 (facsimile)[email protected]
Attorneys for Barrett Lancaster Brown
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that today, August 8, 2013, I filed the instant motion using the Northern Districtof Texass electronic filing system (ECF) which will send a notice of filing to all counsel of
record.
/s/ Ahmed GhappourAHMED GHAPPOUR
/s/ Charles SwiftCHARLES SWIFT
/s/ Marlo P. CadedduMARLO P. CADEDDU
Attorneys for Barrett Lancaster Brown
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-1 Filed 08/08/13 Page 10 of 10 PageID 332
8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
27/30
8/8/13 2:he cyber-intelligence complex and its useful idiots | Barrett Brown | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Page ttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/cyber-intelligence-complex-useful-idiots
The cyber-intelligence complex and its useful idiots
J Edgar Hoover (right, with President Richard Nixon) ran the FBI's illegal Cointelpro domestic political surveillance scheme. Photogra
Bettmann/Corbis
It's a fine thing to see mainstream American media outlets finally sparing some of their attentio
toward the cyber-industrial complex that unprecedented conglomeration of state, military an
corporate interests that together exercise growing power over the flow of information. It would
even more heartening if so many of the nation's most influential voices, from senator to pundi
were not clearly intent on killing off even this belated scrutiny into the invisible empire that
thoroughly scrutinizes us at our own expense and to unknown ends.
Summing up the position of those who worry less over secret government powers than they d
over the whistleblowers who reveal such things, we have New York Times columnist Thom
Friedman, who argues that we can trust small cadres of unaccountable spies with broad powe
over our communications. We must all wish Friedman luck with this prediction. Other proclam
tions of his including that Vladimir Putin would bring transparency and liberal democracy
Russia, and that the Chinese regime would not seek to limit its citizens' free access to the interne
have not aged especially well.
An unkind person might dismiss Friedman as the incompetent harbinger of a dying republic. Beipolite, I will merely suggest that Friedman's faith in government is as misplaced as faith in the ju
and benevolent God that we know not to exist Friedman having been the winner of several of t
world's most-coveted Pulitzer Prizes.
If Friedman is, indeed, too quick to trust the powerful, it's a trait he shares with the just over half
Americans, who tell pollsters they're fine with the NSA programs that were until recently hidd
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-2 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 333
http://www.theguardian.com/world/nsahttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/friedman-blowing-a-whistle.html?_r=08/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
28/30
8/8/13 2:he cyber-intelligence complex and its useful idiots | Barrett Brown | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Page ttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/cyber-intelligence-complex-useful-idiots
from their view. Why, our countrymen wonder, ought we to be disturbed by our state's desire
know everything that everyone does? Given the possibility that this surveillance could perha
prevent deaths in the form of terrorist attacks, most Americans are willing to forgo some abstra
notion ofprivacy in favor of the more concrete benefits of security.
Besides, the government to which we're ceding these broad new powers is a democracy, overse
by real, live Americans. And it's hard to imagine American government officials abusing thepowers or at least, it would be, had such officials not already abused similar but more limite
powers through repeated campaigns of disinformation, intimidation and airtight crimes directed
the American public over the last five decades. Cointelpro, Operation Mockingbird, Ultra an
Chaos are among the now-acknowledged CIA, FBI and NSA programs by which those agenci
managed to subvert American democracy with impunity. Supporters of mass surveillance condu
ed under the very same agencies have yet to address how such abuses can be insured against in t
context of powers far greater than anything J Edgar Hoover could command.
Many have never heard of these programs; the sort of people who trust states with secret authoritend not to know what such things have led to in the recent past. Those who do know of su
things may perhaps contend that these practices would never be repeated today. But it was ju
two years ago that the late Michael Hastings revealed that US army officials in Afghanistan we
conducting psy-ops against visiting US senators in order to sway them towards continued fundin
for that unsuccessful war. If military and intelligence officials have so little respect for the civili
leadership, one can guess how they feel about mere civilians.
Not that anyone need merely guess. Discussing the desirability of such "information operations"
his 2001 book, retired USAF Lt Col George Crawford noted that voters tend to view these sorts programs with suspicion. "Consequently," he concludes, "these efforts must take place away fro
public eyes."
And so they do. If we want to learn a thing or two about the latest round of such programs th
is, if we are willing to disregard the Thomas Friedmans of this world we must look not just t
wards the three letter agencies that have routinely betrayed us in the past, but also to the unto
number of private intelligence contracting firms that have sprung up lately in order to betray us
a more efficient and market-oriented manner. Our lieutenant colonel, scourge of "public eyes",
among the many ex-military and intelligence officials who have left public service, or public obfucation or whatever we're calling it now to work in the expanding sphere of private spookery,
which is outsourced information operations by the Pentagon, spy agencies, and even other corp
rations who need an edge over some enemy (in Crawford's case, the mysterious Archimedes Glo
al).
So, how trustworthy is this privatized segment of the invisible empire? We would know almo
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-2 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 334
http://www.archimedesglobal.com/Default.aspxhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/edward-snowden-investigate-booz-allenhttp://www.amazon.com/Manhunting-Reversing-Polarity-George-Crawford/dp/1604413328/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372690473&sr=1-1http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223http://www.theguardian.com/world/fbihttp://www.theguardian.com/world/ciahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPROhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/privacyhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/surveillance8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
29/30
8/8/13 2:he cyber-intelligence complex and its useful idiots | Barrett Brown | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Page ttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/cyber-intelligence-complex-useful-idiots
nothing of their operations were it not for a chance turn of events that prompted Anonymous-aff
ated hackers to seize 70,000 emails from one typical firm back in early 2011. From this more-or-le
random sampling of contractor activity, we find a consortium of these firms plotting to intimida
attack and discredit WikiLeaks and those identified as its key supporters, including the (then S
lon, now Guardian) journalist Glenn Greenwald a potentially illegal conspiracy concocted on b
half of corporate giant Bank of America, which feared exposure by WikiLeaks, and organized u
der the auspices of the Department of Justice itself.
We find several of the same firms which collectively referred to themselves as Team Themis i
volved in another scheme to deploy sophisticated software-based fake people across social n
works in order to infiltrate and mislead. For instance, Themis proposes sending two of these "pe
sonas" to pose online as members of an organization opposed to the US Chamber of Commerce, a
other prospective Themis client, in order to discredit the group from within. Yet another revelatio
involves a massive cross-platform military program of disinformation and surveillance directed
the Arab world; still another relates how one NSA-inked firm can monitor and attack online infr
structure throughout the world, including western Europe, and will rent these capabilities out those with a few million dollars to spend on such things.
And Booz Allen Hamilton, which has received some belated scrutiny as the eminently powerf
employer of NSA leaker Edward Snowden, was apparently in talks with Themis participant H
Gary Federal regarding its own still-secret "project" involving, again, WikiLeaks. These are simp
a few of the revelations stemming from a portion of the email correspondence among a handful
major contracting firms a tiny, serendipitous sampling of what such firms are doing for their go
ernment and corporate clients as they compete for contracts.
Hundred of these sorts of companies have come about in the last few years, operating in close pa
nerships with the state, yet existing beyond the view of Congress, the media and "public eye
Even in the unlikely instance when their activities come to light, potentially illegal behavior go
unpunished; even calls by congressmen to investigate the sordid Themis conspiracy were ignor
by the Department of Justice, which, of course, set the whole thing in motion to begin with throu
its recommendation.
This, then, is the environment in which public officials and Beltway insiders like Friedman are as
ing us to trust the intelligence community and its private partner firms with increasing power ovinformation. It's an age in which even the limited rules in place can be broken with impunity by t
powerful even as journalists and activists who cross them are targeted for destruction by stat
corporate alliances armed with increasingly sophisticated cyber weapons, propaganda techniqu
and surveillance authority.
This is the world we accept if we continue to avert our eyes. And it promises to get much worse.
Case 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-2 Filed 08/08/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 335
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/15/944614/-HBGary-Themis-bloggers-and-traditional-media-What-a-tangled-Web#http://www.dcbureau.org/201306148757/bulldog-blog/booz-allen-hamilton-corporate-intelligence.htmlhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/edward-snowdenhttp://www.theguardian.com/media/wikileakshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/24/surveillance-us-national-security8/22/2019 Fight Over Barrett Brown Continuance and Gag Order
30/30
8/8/13 2:he cyber-intelligence complex and its useful idiots | Barrett Brown | Comment is free | theguardian.comCase 3:12-cr-00317-L Document 82-2 Filed 08/08/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 336