Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 354-5 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4965 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 354-5 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4966 Page 2 of 3
`
`Law Office of David W. Wiechert
`Attorneys at Law
`27361 Paseo Espada, Suite B1123
`San Juan Capistrano, CA 9267 5
`Telephone: (949) 361-2822
`Facsimile: (949) 496-6753
`
`January 28, 2019
`
`Via E-Mail
`Melanie Pearson, Esq.
`Sabrina Feve , Esq.
`Robert Ciaffa, Esq.
`United States Attorney's Office
`Southern District of California
`
`Re: United States v. Jacob Bychak, et al., Case No. 18-CR-4683
`
`Dear Ms. Pierson, Ms. Feve and Mr. Ciaffa:
`
`Pursuant to the Court's order to meet and confer regarding the Defendants' Bill of
`Particulars motion, which was heard on January 25, 2019, below is a summary of
`the Defendants' understanding of what the government intends to assert at trial,
`and the outstanding Bill of Particulars issues to discuss at the meet and confer
`conference.
`
`Settled Bill of Particulars Issues
`
`• The only IP netblocks that the government alleges were illegal are the IP
`netblocks listed in Grand Jury Exhibit ("GJ Ex.") 251. Further, the
`government has represented that the Letters of Authority that were allegedly
`false are the domains listed in GJ Ex. 251.
`
`• At the hearing, the government represented that it is only claiming that the
`dba/domain names to allegedly conceal Defendants' identity, as referenced in
`the Indictment, are the dba/domain names associated with the 11 allegedly
`hijacked netblocks identified in GJ Ex. 251.
`
`Outstanding Bill of Particulars Issues to Meet & Confer
`
`•
`
`Identify the specific names of the dbas, post office boxes and domain names
`allegedly used by Defendants to conceal their identity related to the 11
`allegedly hijacked netblocks as identified in GJ Ex. 251.
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 354-5 Filed 03/24/22 PageID.4967 Page 3 of 3
`
`• Specify whether the government alleges Defendants sending commercial
`"spam" email in itself is illegal, or only the emails sent from the 11 allegedly
`hijacked netblocks are illegal. The government's argument on page 9 of its
`Opposition to the Defendants' Bill of Particulars Motion suggests it views
`"spam" email as illegal.
`
`•
`
`Identify the amount of the proceeds the government seeks to forfeit and
`identify the property subject to forfeiture. Although Fed. Crim. Rule 32.2(a)
`does not require the indictment to identify the property subject to forfeiture
`or specify the amount, the 2009 amendment notes to that rule provide: "[t]he
`court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars to inform the
`defendant of the identity of the property that the government is seeking to
`forfeit or the amount of any money judgment sought if necessary to enable
`the defendant to prepare a defense or to avoid unfair surprise. See, e.g.,
`United States v. Moffitt, Zwerdling, & Kemler, P.C., 83 F.3d 660, 665 (4th Cir.
`1996) (holding that the government need not list each asset subject to
`forfeiture in the indictment because notice can be provided in a bill of
`particulars); United States v. Vasquez-Ruiz, 136 F. Supp. 2d 941, 944 (N.D.
`Ill. 2001) (directing the government to identify in a bill of particulars, at least
`30 days before trial, the specific items of property, including substitute
`assets, that it claims are subject to forfeiture) .... "
`
`Please let us know some dates and times you are available for a meet and confer
`conference to discuss these issues. Thank you again for your cooperation and
`attention to these matters.
`
`Ver truly yours,
`
`Cc: James Riddett
`Whitney Z. Bernstein
`Thomas H. Bienert Jr.
`Naeun Rim
`Gary Lincenberg
`Randy K. Jones
`
`(~
`
`\
`
`2
`
`
