Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1526 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`Randy K. Jones - SBN 141711
`rkjones@mintz.com
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130
`Telephone: (858) 314-1510
`
`Attorney for Mark Manoogian
`
`
`Whitney Z. Bernstein - SBN 304917
`wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com
`Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. - SBN 135311
`tbienert@bmkattorneys.com
`James Riddet – SBN 39826
`jriddet@bmkattorneys.com
`BIENERT | KATZMAN PC
`903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
`San Clemente, California 92673
`Telephone: (949) 369-3700
`
`Attorneys for Mohammed Abdul Qayyum
`
`
`Gary S. Lincenberg - SBN 123058
` glincenberg@birdmarella.com
`Naeun Rim - SBN 263558
` nrim@birdmarella.com
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,
`NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG &
`RHOW, P.C.
`1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
`Telephone: (310) 201-2100
`Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
`
`Attorneys for Petr Pacas
`
`David W. Wiechert - SBN 94607
`dwiechert@aol.com
`Jessica C. Munk - SBN 238832
`jessica@wmgattorneys.com
`William J. Migler - SBN 318518
`william@wmgattorneys.com
`WIECHERT, MUNK & GOLDSTEIN,
`PC
`27136 Paseo Espada, Suite B1123
`San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
`Telephone: (949) 361-2822
`
`Attorneys for Jacob Bychak
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` CASE NO. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
`FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO DISMISS WIRE FRAUD
`COUNTS FOR VIOLATING THE
`FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE
`PROCESS AND SIXTH
`AMENDMENT FAIR NOTICE
`PROTECTIONS
`
`Date: June 26, 2020
`Time: 2:30 p.m.
`Crtrm.:
`2D
`
`Assigned to Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`JACOB BYCHAK, MARK
`MANOOGIAN, MOHAMMED
`ABDUL QAYYUM, AND PETR
`PACAS,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3649483
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1527 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`Defendants Jacob Bychak, Mark Manoogian, Mohammed Abdul Qayyum, and
`
`Petr Pacas (“Defendants”) hereby submit this Notice of Statement of Undisputed Facts
`(“SUF”), together with references to supporting evidence, in support of its concurrently
`filed Motion to Dismiss Wire Fraud Counts for Violating the Fifth Amendment Due
`Process and Sixth Amendment Fair Notice Protections.
`
`SU
`F
`
`Undisputed Fact
`
`Source
`
`1 ARIN has stated that IP addresses are not property.1
`
`Meet and Confer
`Email, Decl. Rim
`¶ 2, Exh. A
`
`2
`
`I, John Curran, am currently the Chief Executive Officer
`of the American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.
`(“ARIN”). I have personal knowledge of the following
`facts.
`
`Declaration of
`John Curran, Dkt.
`107-1 ¶ 14
`(“Decl. Curran”)
`¶ 1
`Decl. Curran ¶ 2
`
`Decl. Curran ¶ 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`I have served as ARIN’s CEO since 2009. Prior to that, I
`was the founding Chairman of ARIN and elected chair of
`ARIN’s Board of Trustees. I am still an ARIN Trustee
`today.
`In December 1997, the U.S. Government’s National
`Science Foundation (“NSF”) established ARIN as a
`nonprofit, member-based organization to support the
`operation and growth of the Internet. See Press Release,
`National Science Foundation, Internet Moves Toward
`Privatization (June 24, 1997),
`https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=10
`2819. The NSF stated at the time that, “Internet Protocol
`number assignments will soon be handled by a non-profit
`organization. The NSF has approved a plan from
`Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) which establishes the
`American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN). Under
`the plan, ARIN would assume full responsibility for
`Internet Protocol (IP) number assignments and related
`administrative tasks previously handled by NSI. . . .” Id.
`The NSF stated further that, “The establishment of
`ARIN is important for the continued growth and the
`global stability of the Internet . . . .” Id. As a result of this
`stipulation of the United States Government at ARIN’s
`inception, ARIN provides registry services for all Internet
`
`1 The Government disputes that ARIN speaks for the Government or binds the
`Government, which is not a factual dispute.
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1528 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`SU
`F
`
`Undisputed Fact
`
`Source
`
`5
`
`number blocks within the ARIN service region, including
`registry services for those allocations and assignments
`made prior to ARIN’s formation in 1997.
`The NSF stated further that “[t]he creation of ARIN will
`not change any current policies or procedures for
`obtaining Internet numbers. Creation of ARIN will give
`the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service
`providers, corporations and other large institutions) a
`voice in the policies by which they are managed and
`allocated within the North American region.” Id. In this
`manner, the NSF affirmed that ARIN, as member-based
`organization, would provide a mechanism for
`development of policies by the community and would use
`the resulting policies for allocation and management of
`Internet number resources in the region.
`6 ARIN provides services related to the technical
`coordination and management of Internet number
`resources. ARIN’s mission statement is as follows:
`“ARIN, a nonprofit member-based organization,
`supports the operation of the Internet through the
`management of Internet number resources throughout its
`service region; coordinates the development of policies by
`the community for the management of Internet Protocol
`number resources; and advances the Internet through
`informational outreach.”
`7 ARIN provides registry services that identify to the public
`the parties that have been assigned the rights to specific
`Internet number resources within its service region
`including Canada, the United States, and several islands in
`the Caribbean Sea and North Atlantic Ocean. Internet
`number resources consist of Internet Protocol Addresses
`for two versions of Internet protocol, IPv4 and IPv6, as
`well as related autonomous system numbers (“ASNs”).
`These registry services consist of maintaining accurate
`entries of the single unique holder of rights for each
`Internet number resource in the service area, processing
`requests for the allocation and transfer of registry entries,
`and distributing registration information to the
`community at large. ARIN provides these services on
`behalf of the Internet community in accordance with the
`Internet number resource policies developed and changed
`from time to time by the Internet community it serves.
`8 ARIN’s registry service is authoritative regarding the
`Internet number resource rights holder of record for all
`Internet number resource registrations within its service
`area, including the United States, including those
`
`Decl. Curran ¶ 5
`
`Decl. Curran ¶ 6
`
`Decl. Curran ¶ 7
`
`Decl. Curran ¶ 8
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`3
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1529 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`SU
`F
`
`Undisputed Fact
`
`Source
`
`assignments made prior to its formation but now being
`administered by ARIN as result of NSF’s transfer of “full
`responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) number
`assignments and related administrative tasks previously
`handled by NSI.” Id.
`9 Currently, ARIN has on file more than 23,000 signed
`RSAs and LRSAs with organizations. Among these
`organizations are major Internet service providers,
`wireless phone companies, private and public universities,
`state and U.S. Federal government agencies, Canadian
`provincial and federal government agencies, private
`financial institutions, insurance companies, and other
`large and small companies that require access to the
`Internet.
`10 The Court’s careful review of ARIN’s role is justified by
`the unusual context of the Internet’s unique international
`private and public sector structure. The Internet’s self-
`governing private- sector coordinating bodies, including
`ARIN, were created over a multi-decade period through
`actions and oversight of multiple agencies of the U.S.
`Government, including the Department of Defense, the
`National Science Foundation, and the Department of
`Commerce’s National Telecommunications and
`Information Administration (“NTIA”). The authority
`provided entities like ARIN reflects the need for a
`delicate balance: it permits private-sector coordination
`with government involvement limited to oversight, at no
`cost to U.S. taxpayers, to continue a function previously
`performed by the U.S. Government directly, or through
`its paid contractors. Indeed, even the U.S. Government’s
`agencies follow and are bound by ARIN’s policies when
`the agencies apply for and obtain rights to Internet
`number resources and services from ARIN.
`11 The importance of hierarchical address management to
`proper operation of the Internet is reflected in the U.S.
`Government NTIA Statement of Internet Domain Name
`(“DNS”) Management Policy: “Allocate Internet Number
`Resources—This function . . . includes the responsibility
`to delegate[] IP address blocks to regional registries for
`routine allocation, typically through downstream
`providers, to Internet end-users within the regions served
`by those registries.” The Internet Assigned Numbers
`Authority (IANA) Functions, 76 Fed. Reg. 34,658, 34,665
`(June 14, 2011). The importance of hierarchical address
`management stems from the need to “route” packets
`whose destination addresses refer to IP address blocks on
`the global Internet. While a given IP address block may
`
`Decl. Curran ¶ 12
`
`Decl. Curran ¶ 13
`
`Decl. Curran ¶ 17
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`4
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1530 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`SU
`F
`
`Undisputed Fact
`
`Source
`
`14
`
`be composed of thousands, or tens of thousands of
`contiguous IP addresses, hierarchical addressing allows all
`of those addresses to be routed via only a single entry in
`the Internet’s global routing table. Thus, an Internet
`Service Provider can receive an IP address block from an
`RIR and can connect thousands of customers while
`adding only minimal routing table burden to the
`Internet’s global Internet routing system. This efficiency
`is crucial because the routing system has limited capacity.
`13 My name is Marc A. Lindsey, I am over the age of 21
`years and I have personal knowledge of the matters set
`forth herein, or have familiarized myself with the
`following matters from the Declaration of John Curran
`(“Curran’s Declaration”) in support of the Government’s
`Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to
`Dismiss Counts 6-10 and Count 1 (“Government’s
`Opposition”).
`I am president of Avenue4 LLC (“Avenue4”). I co-
`founded Avenue4 in 2014, and have served as its
`president from Avenue4’s founding. Avenue4 is an IPv4
`market advisor. Prior to founding Avenue4, I led the IPv4
`practice at Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP
`(“LB3”). The IPv4 practice at LB3 began in 2008. LB3 is
`a technology law firm located in Washington, D.C. In my
`role at Avenue4 and LB3, I have advised numerous
`holders of legacy IPv4 address space (as defined in
`Paragraph 9 below) in connection with managing their
`registration records with ARIN, and participating in the
`IPv4 market. My clients have included both legacy
`address holders (including entities with legacy /8 blocks,
`which are the largest allocated blocks, consisting of
`16,777,216 numbers) and non-legacy address holders.
`15 At the core of the Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss and
`the Government’s Opposition is the question of whether
`legacy address holders (entities given IP address space
`prior to ARIN’s existence) are “registrants” under the
`CAN-SPAM Act where the legacy holder has taken no
`affirmative action or election to register with ARIN
`merely because ARIN retained the legacy address
`information in the number allocation and assignment
`listing database ARIN received from InterNIC, its
`predecessor, when ARIN was formed in 1997 to allocate
`IP number from the remaining IP number free pool.
`16 To obtain address space from IANA or InterNIC, the
`requesting organization needed only to issue a written
`request using a short form text template identifying the
`
`Declaration of
`Marc Lindsey,
`Dkt. 116-1
`(“Decl. Linsey”) ¶
`1
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶ 2
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶ 4
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶ 7
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`5
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1531 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`SU
`F
`
`Undisputed Fact
`
`Source
`
`organization. If the request was approved, these early
`recipients received a notice identifying the address space.
`The notice did not include, incorporate or reference any
`registration agreement, membership contract or other
`form of contract terms and conditions. These early
`recipients of IP address space were encouraged to follow
`then-current industry best practices and community
`standards for network operators on the internet, but there
`were no binding contractual registration agreements
`between allocating / assigning organization(s) and the
`early address recipients at the time their legacy address
`space was given to them. [See, e.g., Milton Mueller, et al.,
`Dimensioning the Elephant: An Empirical Analyses of the IPv4
`Number Market, at 2 (2012), available at
`https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-
`content/uploads/IPv4marketTPRC20122.pdf (last visited
`August 19, 2019); and Benjamin Shantz, Determining
`Ownership and Control of IPv4 Addresses, Washington
`University Law Journal (2017), Vol. 94, Issue 3, 742–744
`(2017)].
`17 As the internet continued to grow rapidly in the 1990s,
`various Internet governance stakeholders successfully
`advocated to geographically distribute the
`allocation/assignment and management of IP address
`space into Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). Over time,
`the central IP number allocation and assignment
`functions performed initially by IANA, then by InterNIC,
`were distributed to the RIRs in phases. [See The Internet
`Registry System, https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-
`governance/internet-technical-community/the-rir- system
`(last visited August 15, 2019)]. As each RIR assumed
`responsibilities for IP address allocations and
`assignments, the portions of the database listings of IP
`address allocations and assignments made prior to the
`founding of the each RIR (which is considered “legacy
`address space”) relevant to its region were handed to
`them by IANA and/or InterNIC with the understanding
`that, as the new stewards of IP address management, the
`RIRs would continue to maintain the listings of the legacy
`address space allocations and assignments. [See Milton
`Mueller, Scarcity in IP addresses: IPv4 Address Transfer
`Markets and the Regional Internet Address Registries (2008)
`(available at https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-
`content/uploads/IPAddress_TransferMarkets.pdf) (last
`visited August 19, 2019) (“Scarcity in IP addresses”) at 4-
`6].
`18 Currently, there are five RIRs: (i) AFRINIC (established
`in 2005 to serve countries on the African continent); (ii)
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶ 9
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`10
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`6
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1532 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`SU
`F
`
`Undisputed Fact
`
`Source
`
`APNIC (founded in 1993 to cover Asia Pacific and
`Oceania countries); (iii) ARIN (established in 1997 to take
`over from InterNIC in the United States, Canada, the
`Caribbean, and certain other outlying countries in the
`North Atlantic Ocean); (iv) RIPE NCC (opened in 1992
`with Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia as
`its service region); and (v) LACNIC (created in 2001 to
`cover Latin American and certain Caribbean countries).
`19 ARIN also relies on address holders to update ARIN with
`any changes to their listing information. This reliance is
`backed by a contractual obligation from ARIN registrants
`pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Current LRSA / RSA
`attached as Exhibit 1. However, this self-reporting
`approach is not effective with respect to legacy address
`holders that remain outside ARIN’s contract and policy
`enforcement framework.
`20 Relying on references to a complex set of delegations,
`assumptions of responsibilities, and technical protocol
`and policy recommendations [see, e.g., Curran’s
`Declaration, ¶ ¶ 4, 5, 8, 11, and 13], ARIN advocates for a
`framework that allows it to impose its current registry
`policies on legacy holders (and their legacy address space)
`who have not entered into registration agreements with
`ARIN. [See Curran’s Declaration, ¶ 11 stating that
`“ARIN’s policies apply to all number resources
`enumerated in the registry regardless of whether or not
`they are subject to a formal agreement.”]
`21 Based on my experience, ARIN’s position runs contrary
`to normal contract law in the United States, and conflicts
`with the intentions and understandings of most legacy
`address holders. It is even contrary to the understanding
`of the General Counsel of the National Science
`Foundation (“NSF”), which had stewardship authority
`over IP address space for the U.S. Government prior to
`the establishment of Regional Internet Registry system. In
`a letter dated August 30, 2012 to a legacy address holder
`clarifying the address holders rights and interests in its
`number block, Lawrence Rudolf, NSF General Counsel
`stated that “NSF does not believe that ARIN, or for that
`matter any other organization, could retroactively affect
`property and rights distributed to you (or any other
`recipient) . . . .”
`[https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.internetgovernance
`.org/wp-
`content/uploads/NSF_GC_Letter_RE_ARIN.pdf at 2
`(last visited August 19, 2019)].
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`15
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`16
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`17
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`7
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1533 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`SU
`F
`
`Undisputed Fact
`
`Source
`
`22
`
`In an effort to bring legacy address holders into the
`hierarchical internet registry system, ARIN launched its
`legacy address registration services agreement program in
`late 2007 (the “LRSA Program”). The purpose of the
`LRSA Program was to incent legacy address holders to
`enter into LRSAs in order to bind them and their address
`space contractually to ARIN and its registry policies. A
`copy of the current LRSA (which is now merged into a
`single template with ARIN’s regular registration services
`agreement) is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (the “Current
`RSA/LRSA”).
`23 ARIN has successfully caused many legacy address
`holders to enter into the LRSA and subject their address
`space to ARIN’s registry policies and control. [Curran’s
`Declaration, ¶ 12]. However, not all legacy holders have
`done so. Many legacy address holders undergo a process
`of determining whether the burdens of bringing their
`legacy address space into the formal ARIN registry
`system are outweighed by the benefits.
`24 Legacy address holders who have not voluntarily entered
`into an LRSA or RSA with ARIN continue to use and
`route their legacy numbers over the public internet largely
`undisturbed and without controversy. ARIN itself
`recognizes that entry into an LRSA or RSA is not
`required for legacy holders to retain their rights to address
`space previously given to them. [See Legacy Resource
`Services: Services Available to Legacy Resource Holders,
`https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/legacy/services/
`(last visited on August 19, 2019) (“ARIN Legacy
`Resource Services”) (listing how ARIN maintains records
`of legacy address holders that have not entered into RSAs
`or LRSAs)].
`25 Upon execution of the Current RSA/LRSA attached as
`Exhibit 1, ARIN “grants to Holder the following
`specified rights: (1) The exclusive right to be the registrant of
`the Included Number Resources within the ARIN
`database; (2) The right to use the Included Number
`Resources within the ARIN database; and (3) The right to
`transfer the registration of the Included Number
`Resources pursuant to the Policies.” [Section 2(b) of the
`Current RSA/LRSA attached as Exhibit 1].
`26 By entering into a RSA or LRSA, a legacy address holder,
`among other things, affirmatively and contractually agrees
`to: (i) conform to ARIN’s terms , conditions, and the NR
`PM) [See Section 1(c) of the Current RSA/LRSA attached
`as Exhibit 1], (ii) waive any property rights it may have in
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`19
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`20
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`21
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`23
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`24
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`8
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1534 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`SU
`F
`
`Undisputed Fact
`
`Source
`
`its address space [See Section 7 of the Current
`RSA/LRSA attached as Exhibit 1], (iii) follow ARIN’s
`policies to obtain ARIN’s consent prior to transferring
`control of its IP numbers (rather than the commercial
`terms of the arrangement between the source and
`recipient) [NRPM Sections 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5], and (iv)
`grant ARIN the right to revoke the address space under
`certain circumstances. [See Section 13 of the Current
`RSA/LRSA attached as Exhibit 1].
`27 Legacy address holders that have not entered into any
`RSA or LRSA with ARIN: (i) remain outside the RIR
`system, (ii) are not members of ARIN like all other
`regular address holders and legacy holders that have
`signed an LRSA, (iii) are denied important rights to
`update their ARIN Whois database records to reflect
`changes in control or use rights, (iv) have not taken any
`affirmative action to register their address space with
`ARIN, and (v) have not been granted by ARIN an
`exclusive right to an accurate entry in any ARIN
`database. And in some cases, the entity listed in the
`ARIN Whois database no longer exists, or no longer has
`effective control over the legacy IP address space to
`which it is associated.
`It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that an entity listed
`as an early recipient of legacy address space in ARIN’s
`Whois database should not qualify as a registrant merely
`because its name appears in the ARIN’s Whois database
`unless and until (i) the entity has assented to be registered
`with ARIN by entering into an LRSA or RSA, and (ii) the
`accuracy of the listing has been validated.
`
`28
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`27
`
`Decl. Lindsey ¶
`28
`
`
`
`DATED: May 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Naeun Rim
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`
`By:
`
`s/ Naeun Rim
`Naeun Rim
`
`Attorneys for Petr Pacas
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`9
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1535 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`DATED: May 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: May 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: May 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David W. Wiechert
`Jessica C. Munk
`William J. Migler
`Law Office of David W. Wiechert
`
`By:
`
`s/ David W. Wiechert
`David W. Wiechert
`
`Attorneys for Jacob Bychak
`
`Randy K. Jones
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo,
`P.C.
`
`By:
`
`s/ Randy K. Jones
`Randy K. Jones
`
`Attorney for Mark Manoogian
`
`Whitney Z. Bernstein
`Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.
`James Riddet
`Bienert, Miller & Katzman, PLC
`
`By:
`
`s/ Whitney Z. Bernstein
`Whitney Z. Bernstein
`
`Attorneys for Mohammed Abdul Qayyum
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`10
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1536 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
`TO SIGN ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE
`
`Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies
`
`and Procedures of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
`California, I certify that the content of this document is acceptable to counsel for the
`Defendants and that I have obtained authorization from Randy K. Jones, David W.
`Wiechert, and Whitney Z. Bernstein to affix their electronic signatures to this
`document.
`
`DATED: May 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Naeun Rim
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`
`By:
`
`s/ Naeun Rim
`Naeun Rim
`
`Attorneys for Petr Pacas
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`11
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 164-2 Filed 05/18/20 PageID.1537 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Counsel for Defendants certify that the foregoing pleading has been
`
`electronically served on the following parties by virtue of their registration with the
`CM/ECF system:
`
`Sabrina L. Feve
`Assistant U.S. Attorney
`sabrina.feve@usdoj.gov
`
`Melanie K. Pierson
`Assistance U.S. Attorney
`melanie.pierson@usdoj.gov
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Naeun Rim
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`
`By:
`
`s/ Naeun Rim
`Naeun Rim
`
`Attorneys for Petr Pacas
`
`DATED: May 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3649483.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`12
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`