Computer underground Digest Sun Apr 24, 2020 Volume 6 : Issue 37 Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2020 21:21:32 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 2--Defense Motion Filed in Amateur Action BBS Case ((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following brief was filed by Robert Thomas's (Amatuer Action BBS sysop) defense attorney. Thanks to Keith Henson who provided the text)). RICHARD D. WILLIAMS, APC State Bar #92376 79 Divine St., Suite 101 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 295-6336 Attorney for Defendants/Claimants IN THE UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF THE ) NO.: CR 3-94-30005 WDB SEARCH OF THE PREMISES ) KNOWN AS: ) MOTION TO RELATE CASE ) FRPC RULE 205-2 475 TRAMWAY DRIVE ) MILPITAS, CA 95035 ) ______________________________) TO THE HONORABLE MARILYN PATEL, FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: 1. Claimants Robert and Carleen Thomas had their premises searched on January 10 based on a search warrant allegedly signed by Magistrate Brazil on January 6, 2020. At this time Claimants entire computer bulletin board system (BBS) was seized. The warrant was issued without the required showings under both the Electronic Communication Privacy Act and the First Amendment Privacy Protection Act: 2. This warrant was applied for by Postal Inspector Dirmeyer from Tennessee who, among other things, allege that he had offered to send child pornography through the mails to one of the claimants-- though his affidavit is equivocal on the actual nature and time of what communications transpired between himself and the claimant. On the day the search warrant was issued, the Postal Inspector sent claimant a package of child pornography. Within minutes of its receipt, and while claimants were wondering what to do with the unsolicited material (for which they had absolutely no use), the Postal Inspector knocked on their door with a warrant to take their computer BBS. 3. Because the Postal Inspector had neglected to obtain a warrant to get his government supplied child pornography back, he was faced with the choice of a trip back to San Francisco or getting permission from the claimant to take the child pornography. Claimant having no use for the material agreed that the Postal Inspector could take it. Postal Inspector Dirmeyer described the material in his own block handwriting as "namely priority mail package from Lance White addressed to Robert Thomas sent without his knowledge." ["Lance White" was the name Postal Inspector Dirmeyer used to access the claimants BBS.] 4. In conversation with a citizen of good reputation the Saturday following the search, Postal Inspector Dirmeyer claimed that sending unsolicited child pornography to people was standard investigative procedure and that he had done this in hundreds of investigations. 5. Mr. Dirmeyer came here from Tennessee making the claim that the BBS operated by claimants had materials on it which were obscene by Tennessee standards. It is not clear weather or not these were shown to Magistrate Brazil, or if Magistrate Brazil has knowledge of either local or Tennessee standards for obscenity. The search warrant left at the premises had the case number 3-94- 3005 WDB (later changed for unknown reasons to 94-3-20195 WDB). 6. I personally went to the Federal District Court in San Jose to obtain a docket sheet (since I had reasons to doubt Judge Brazil had actually signed the search warrant) and discovered there was no such file. I went to San Francisco and was told (1) there was a file, (2) it was not sealed, (3) but I couldn't see it because the U.S. Attorney had it and I should check back in a few days. I checked back three days later and was told that there still was no file available. I called Judge Brazil's office and was told by his secretary that she could find no evidence that this application had been before Judge Brazil. I could hear someone approach Judge Brazil's secretary and she ask me to 'hold.' I did, and when she came back, she told me that there was a file but it was "sealed." 7. The affidavit itself was never sealed by Judicial order, though the allegedly obscene attachments were. In spite of persistent efforts, the affidavit was kept from me until several days after it was "unsealed" on January 27, the day after an indictment issued in Tennessee and three days before this court would coast to e the general duty Court. 8. I complained of my clients due process rights being violated and filed my motion in this court which should have been heard on February 28, 2020 at 2:30 pm. I was informed the morning of the 28th that the U.S. Attorney had contacted your clerk (Ms Morriyama) and had taken me off calendar. My motion was then rerouted to Judge Caulfield. I was also told that the U.S. Attorney had taken me off calendar by Magistrate Brennan's clerk who was calling to re-route my motion. I feel that my clients, myself, and this court have been the victims of fraud, and deception by the U.S. Attorney's office, Magistrate Brazil and his staff, and possibly Ms Morriyama, this court's clerk. 9. I am requesting that this court relate this motion pursuant to Rule 205-2 to the Nation Association of Radiation Survivors vs. Harry N. Walters, Case No. C-83-1861 MPH or any other similar case the court is aware of wherein the court dealt with the issue of fraud, manipulation of evidence and deception on the court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES "Relatedness" is governed by FRPC Section 205-2 which states: RULE 205-2. NOTICE OF RELATED CASE (a) Duties of Counsel. Whenever counsel has reason to believe that an action or proceeding on file or about to be filed is related to another action or proceeding on file with the court (whether or not dismissed or otherwise terminated), counsel shall promptly file and serve on all known parties to each related action or proceeding a Notice of Related Case, stating the title, number and filing date of each action or proceeding believed to be related, together with a brief statement of their relationship and the reasons why assignment to a single judge is or is not likely to effect a saving of judicial effort and other economies. The clerk will promptly notify the court of such filing. (b) Definition of Related Action. An action or proceeding is related to another when both actions or proceedings: ' . ' (i) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; or (ii) involve the same property, transaction or event; or (iii) involve substantially the same facts and the same questions of law. (c) Procedure After Filing. Within ten days after service of a Notice of Related Case, any party may file a counterstatement supporting or opposing the Notice. The court will then determine whether reassignment should be made. Conclusion: In conclusion, Applicants respectfully request that this case be determined to be related to th Atomic Survivor's case or any other cases on the basis of fraud, manipulation of evidence, and deception on the court. Respectfully Submitted by Richard D. Williams Attorney for Claimants