Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
U.S. v. Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer - Defense Merits Brief

U.S. v. Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer - Defense Merits Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 162|Likes:
Published by LeakSourceInfo
http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/u-s-v-andrew-weev-auernheimer-government-defense-merits-briefs/
http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/u-s-v-andrew-weev-auernheimer-government-defense-merits-briefs/

More info:

Published by: LeakSourceInfo on Sep 23, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/16/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 NO. 13-1816UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE THIRD CIRCUITUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,P
LAINTIFF
-A
PPELLEE
,
V
.ANDREW AUERNHEIMER,D
EFENDANT
-A
PPELLANT
.
 
On Appeal From The United States District CourtFor The District of New JerseyCase No. 2:11-cr-00470-SDW-1Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, District Judge
 
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
Tor B. EkelandMark H. JaffeTOR EKELAND, P.C.155 Water StreetBrooklyn, NY 11201Tel.: (718) 285-9343Email: tor@torekeland.comOrin S. Kerr 2000 H Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20052Tel.: (202) 994-4775Email: okerr@law.gwu.eduMarcia HofmannLAW OFFICE OF MARCIA HOFMANN25 Taylor StreetSan Francisco, CA 94102Tel.: (415) 830-6664Email: marcia@marciahofmann.comHanni M. FakhouryELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION815 Eddy StreetSan Francisco, CA 94109Tel.: (415) 436-9333Email: hanni@eff.org
 Attorneys for Defendant- Appellant Andrew Auernheimer 
 
Case: 13-1816 Document: 003111313293 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2013
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .............................................. 1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................ 1
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .................................................................... 1
RELATED CASES AND PROCEEDINGS ............................................................ 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................ 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 15
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 18
I.
AUERNHEIMER DID NOT VIOLATE THE CFAA BECAUSEVISITING AN UNPROTECTED PUBLIC WEBPAGE IS NOTUNAUTHORIZED ACCESS. ........................................................... 18
A.
Visiting AT&T’s Website Was “Authorized” Under theCFAA Because AT&T’s Webpages Were Unprotected andOpenly Available to the Public. ............................................... 19
B.
AT&T’s Hope That the Public Would Not Visit Its WebsiteDoes Not Make Such Visits Unauthorized. ............................. 25
C.
Auernheimer’s Characterization of Spitler’s Act As “Theft”Does Not Make the Access Illegal. .......................................... 28
D.
If “Authorization” is Ambiguous, the Rule of LenityRequires It to be Narrowly Construed. .................................... 31
II.
IF THE COURT FINDS AUERNHEIMER VIOLATED THE CFAA,THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE REDUCED TO AMISDEMEANOR. ............................................................................. 32
Case: 13-1816 Document: 003111313293 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2013
 
iiiA.
Applying the Felony Enhancement Circumvented Congress’sCareful Limits on Felony Liability by Allowing Double-Counting. .................................................................................. 33
B.
Auernheimer Did Not Violate New Jersey’s UnauthorizedAccess Law. ............................................................................. 36
III.
THE § 1028(A)(7) CONVICTION MUST BE OVERTURNEDBECAUSE AUERNHEIMER DID NOT POSSESS OR TRANSFER THE E-MAIL ADDRESSES “IN CONNECTION WITH”UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY. ................................................................ 38
IV.
VENUE IN NEW JERSEY WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE NO AT&TCOMPUTERS WERE THERE AND NO DATA WASTRANSFERRED, POSSESSED OR USED IN THE STATE. ......... 44
V.
THE SENTENCE MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE THEMAILING COSTS WERE NEITHER “REASONABLE” NOR “LOSSES.” ......................................................................................... 51
A.
The Government Failed to Prove AT&T Suffered a $73,000Loss. ......................................................................................... 51
B.
The Mailing Costs Were Not “Loss” Under the CFAA. ......... 53
CONCLUSION
........................................................................................................................
60
 
Case: 13-1816 Document: 003111313293 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/02/2013

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->