19 December 2001. Thanks to Anonymous. Also available at:
http://www.attrition.org/errata/www/vf1/jones.txt
These are conviction and probabtion documents of Frank Jones, proprietor of Codex Data Systems, Inc., and producer of the D.I.R.T. covert computer surveillance program sold only to law enforcement and governmental agencies. More on D.I.R.T.:
http://cryptome.org/dirty-lantern.htm
Jump to name of programmer who wrote D.I.R.T., Eric Schneider.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
FRANK JONES,
Defendant
ORDER
97 Cr. 487
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Indictment 97 Cr. 487, which was sealed on May 16, 1997, by order of an United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York, be unsealed. Dated: July 9, 1997
THEODORE H. KATZ
United States Magistrate Judge
****************************************
Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
FRANK JONES,
Defendant
INDICTMENT
(Title 18, U.S.C. §§ 371, 2512 & 2.)
MARY JO WHITE
United States Attorney
****************************************
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
FRANK JONES,
Defendant
COUNT ONE
The Grand Jury charges:
Conspiracy
1 From in or about January 1992, up to and including in or about May 1992, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, FRANK JONES, the defendant, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, unlawfully, willfully, intentionally and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with each other to commit offenses against the United States, to wit, violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2511(1)(a), 2511(1)(b), 2511(4)(a), 2512(1)(a) and 2512(1)(b).
2. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that FRANK JONES, the defendant, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly would and did send through the mail, and send and carry in interstate and foreign commerce, electronic, mechanical and other devices, to wit, wiretapping and bugging devices, knowing and having reason to know that the design of said devices rendered them primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral and electronic communications, in violation of Section 2512(1)(a) of Title 18, United States Code.
3. It was a further part and object of the conspiracy that FRANK JONES, the defendant, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly would and did manufacture, assemble, possess and sell electronic, mechanical and other devices, to wit, wiretapping and bugging devices, knowing and having reason to know that the design of said devices rendered them primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral and electronic communications, and that said devices and components thereof had been and would be sent through the mail and transported in interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of Section 2512(1)(b) of Title 18, United States Code.
4. It was a further part and object of the conspiracy that FRANK JONES, the defendant, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly would and did intercept and endeavor to intercept any wire, oral and electronic communication, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2511(1)(a) and 2511(4)(a).
5. It was a further part and object of the conspiracy that FRANK JONES, the defendant, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly would and did use and endeavor to use electronic, mechanical and other devices, to wit, wiretapping and bugging devices, to intercept oral communications when (i) said devices were affixed to, and otherwise transmit signals through, wire, cable and other like connection used in wire communications; (ii) said devices transmitted communications by radio; and (iii) said entity and persons knew, and had reason to know, that said devices and components thereof have been sent through the mail and transported in interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2511(1)(b) and 2511(4)(a).
6. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal objects thereof, FRANK JONES, the defendant, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, committed the following overt acts, among others, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere:
a. In or about 1992, FRANK JONES published a SpyWorld catalogue that advertised various bugging and wiretapping devices.b. On or about January 3, 1992, FRANK JONES purchased six bugging devices and three receiving devices from Spy Factory.
c. On or about January 10, 1992, FRANK JONES purchased two bugging devices and two receiving devices from Spy Factory.
d. On or about January 17, 1992, FRANK JONES purchased four bugging devices and three receiving devices from Spy Factory.
e. On or about February 25, 1992, FRANK JONES purchased one bugging device and one receiving device from Spy Factory.
f. On or about April 27, 1992, FRANK JONES purchased one wiretapping device from Spy Factory.
g. On or about May 8, 1992, FRANK JONES purchased one wiretapping device and one receiving device from Spy Factory.
h. On or about May 20, 1992, FRANK JONES purchased one bugging device and one receiving device from Spy Factory.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT TWO
The Grand Jury further charges:
Interstate Transportation Of Illegal Interception Devices
7. On or about May 20, 1992, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, FRANK JONES, the defendant, unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly sent and carried in interstate commerce, electronic, mechanical and other devices, to wit, bugging and receiving devices, knowing and having reason to know that the design of said devices rendered them primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral and electronic communications.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2512(1)(a) and 2.)
COUNT THREE
The Grand Jury further charges:
Possession Of Illegal Interception Devices
8. On or about May 20, 1992, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, FRANK JONES, the defendant, unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly possessed electronic, mechanical and other devices, to wit, bugging and receiving devices, knowing and having reason to know that the design of said devices rendered them primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral and electronic communications, and that said devices and components thereof had been and would be sent through the mail and transported in interstate commerce.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2512(1)(b) and 2.)
MARY JO WHITE
United States Attorney
****************************************
Advice of Penalties and Sanctions
TO THE DEFENDANT:
YOU ARE ADVISED OF THE FOLLOWING PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS:
A violation of any of the foregoing conditions of release may result in the immediate issuance of a warrant for your arrest, a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court and could result in a term of imprisonment, a fine, or both.
The commission of a Federal offense while on pretrial release will result in an additional sentence of a term of imprisonment of not more than ten years, if the offense is a felony; or a term of imprisonment of not more than one year, if the offense is a misdemeanor. This sentence shall be in addition to any other sentence.
Federal law makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment, and a $250,000 fine or both to obstruct a criminal investigation. It is a crime punishable by up to ten years of imprisonment, and a $250,000 fine or both to tamper with a witness, victim or informant; to retaliate or attempt to retaliate against a witness, victim or informant; or to intimidate or attempt to intimidate a witness, victim, juror, informant, or officer of the court. The penalties for tampering, retaliation, or intimidation are significantly more serious if they involve a killing or attempted killing.
If after release, you knowingly fail to appear as required by the conditions of release, or to surrender for the service of sentence, you may be prosecuted for failing to appear or surrender and additional punishment may be imposed. If you are convicted of:
(1) an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of fifteen years or more, you shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both;(2) an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years or more, but less than fifteen years, you shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both;
(3) any other felony, you shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both;
(4) a misdemeanor, you shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
A term of imprisonment imposed for failure to appear or surrender shall be in addition to the sentence for any other offense. In addition, a failure to appear or surrender may result in the forfeiture of any bond posted.
Acknowledgement of Defendant
I acknowledge that I am the defendant in this case and that I am aware of the conditions of release. I promise to obey all conditions of release, to appear as directed, and to surrender for service of any sentence imposed. I am aware of the penalties and sanctions set forth above.
****************************************
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-against -
FRANK JONES, Defendant.
97 cr 487 (JGK)
ORDER
JOHN G. KOELTL
DISTRICT JUDGE
It is hereby ordered that bail for the defendant, Frank Jones, is extended to include New Jersey and Connecticut.
It is further ordered that the defendant may travel beyond the territorial limits of his bail to other parts of the Continental United States provided that the defendant notifies the Pretrial Services Agency of any such travel plans before 48 hours of the date of departure from the bail jurisdiction set by this Court, and the Pretrial Services Agency interposes no objection.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
July 21, 1997
JOHN G. KOELTL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
****************************************
Association of Counter-Intelligence Professionals
PO Box 184
Silver Creek, New York 14136, USA
Phone +1 (716) 934-0531
Fax +1 (716) 934-71S8
by facsimile (212) 805-7912
l July 1999
The Chambers of the Hon. John G. Koeltl
Attention: Don Fletcher
United States District Court
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
cc Joseph V De Marco
AUSA
By facsimile
(212) 637-2205
Re: US v. Francis Edward Jones
97 CR 0487 (JGK)
Dear Mr. Fletcher,
I am writing you in my capacity as Executive Director of the Association of Counter-Intelligence Professionals (ACIP) to advise you of a situation which I feel requires action.
One of my members has complained to me that he and his reputation have been damaged by a defendant who is currently before your court. Please see the attached article from a recent issue of PC World. The article is dated 29 June 1999, and was written by Tom Spring of the magazine.
In the article, the defendant, Frank Jones (see the court reference above), is quoted as being a retired New York City detective. He is not retired; he was fired from the New York City Police Department in 1975. Mr. Jones is also quoted as having written the widely used, but little-known software program called DIRT. He did not. DIRT, as it was originally titled, was written and developed by Eric Schneider of the Schneider Group, Aurora, Colorado. Mr. Schneider is the ACIP member who brought this misrepresentation and fraud to my attention.
Mr. Schneider disassociated himself from the directorship of Codex Data Systems in March 1999, citing improprieties in the handling of corporation funds, improper sales of the software program to ineligible recipients (namely, the states of India, South Africa and Peru -- the first, in possible violation of US State Department sanctions against that country, and the last against the very sound advice of the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and improper secure handling of the DIRT program. When questioned at the time, Mr. Jones threatened to release the source code for the program to the Internet.
Mr Jones is in serious violation of the US copyright code in continuing to demonstrate and sell a product that is not rightfully his. He is also perpetuating a fraud in dealing with what could be determined to be a product controlled under US Code 2512.
I am bringing this matter to your attention as I understand that Mr. Jones is currently before your court awaiting sentencing for other violations of US Code 2512. I find it very ironic that, even as he is awaiting sentencing, Mr Jones cannot be controlled in his use of a very dangerous, possibly prohibited software device.
I understand, for your information, that Mr. Jones is also currently the subject of separate investigations by the United States Secret Service for the illegal interception of email communications, and by the United States Customs Service for the unlawful export of a prohibited device. He is also involved in an investigation being carried out by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
I understand further, for your information, that Mr. Jones' status with the US Customs Service is that of Confidential Informant and, as such, is prohibited by law from selling any product or service to federal agencies.
I am advising my member, Mr. Schneider, to have his attorney send to you copies of the cease and desist orders communicated to Codex Data Systems when he left that organization last March.
In the meantime, I would appreciate your looking into this matter, and attempting to have Mr. Jones' activities curtailed in any manner possible.
I stand ready to discuss this matter further with you, and can be reached at the Ottawa address below, or by telephone at (613) 7494841.
Sincerely yours,
Michael C Richardson
Executive Director
Ottawa Address Suite 201
435 St Laurent Blvd
OTTAWA, Canada K1K 2Z8
Fax: (613) 749-7155
Email: rivervine@webruler.com
****************************************
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
FRANK JONES
THE DEFENDANT:
Pleaded guilty to count(s) THREE OF THE INDICTMENT, pleaded nolo contendere to count(s) which was accepted by the court.
X was found guilty on count(s) after a plea of not guilty.
Title - Section
18 U.S.C. - 2512 (l)(b)
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
(For Offenses Committed On or After November 1, 1987)
Case Number: 1:97CR00487-001
JOHN BURKE
Defendants Attorney
JOSEPH DeMARCO, AUSA
Nature of Offense
POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL INTERCEPTION DEVICES
Date Offense Count Committed Number
05/20/1992 3
The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 5 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
O The defendant has been found not guilty on count(s) Count(s) ONE AND TWO
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.
[Text missing] are dismissed on the motion of the United States.
Defendant's Soc. Sec. No.: 056-42-6158 Defendant's Date of Birth: 09/26/1949 Defendant's USM No.: 40649-054
Defendant's Residence Address:
250 EHRHARDT ROAD
PEARL RIVER
Defendant's Mailing Address:
250 EHRHARDT ROAD
PEARL RIVER.
JOHN G. KOELTL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
****************************************
DEFENDANT: FRANK JONES
CASE NUMBER: 1:97CR00487-001
PROBATION
The defendant is hereby placed on probation for a term of 5 year(s)
Judgment-Page
THE DEFENDANT SHALL PERFORM 300 HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE APPROVED BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT. THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN A MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM APPROVED BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT. THE DEFENDANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COSTS OF SERVICES RENDERED (CO-PAYMENT) IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT BASED ON ABILITY TO PAY AND AVAILABILITY OF THIRD PARTY PAYMENT. THE DEFENDANT IS TO ESTABLISH CONTACT WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND FILE PERSONAL AND BUSINESS TAX RETURNS AS REQUIRED BY LAW FOR ANY YEARS IN WHICH NO RETURNS WERE FILED.
The defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime.
The defendant shall not illegally possess a controlled substance.
For offenses committed on or after September 13, 1994:
The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. The defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of placement on probation and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as directed by the probation officer.
The above drug testing condition is suspended based on the court's determination that the defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse. (Check, if applicable.)
The defendant shall not possess a firearm as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921. (Check, if applicable.)
If this judgment imposes a fine or a restitution obligation, it shall be a condition of probation that the defendant pay any such fine or restitution in accordance with the Schedule of Payments set forth in the Criminal Monetary Penalties sheet of this judgment.
The defendant shall comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court (set forth below) . The defendant shall also comply with the additional conditions on the attached page (if indicated below).
See Special Conditions of Supervision - Page 2a
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
1) The defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer;
2) The defendant shall report to the probation officer and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each month;
3) The defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer;
4) The defendant shall support his or her dependents and meet other family responsibilities;
5) The defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons;
6) The defendant shall notify the probation officer ten days prior to any change in residence or employment;
7) The defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol;
8) The defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered;
9) The defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity, and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer;
10) The defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit him or her at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit confiscation of any contraband observed in plain view of the probation officer;
11) The defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer;
12) The defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency without the permission of the court;
13) As directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal record or personal history, or characteristics, and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the defendant's compliance with such notification requirement.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
THE DEFENDANT IS PRECLUDED FROM OPERATING ANY BUSINESSES UNLESS HE PROVIDES ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTATION TO THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHING THAT THE BUSINESS IS LEGALLY OPERATING PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE(S) IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED OR DOES BUSINESS.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT
Page 5a of 5
The Sentencing Recommendation indicates that because of the defendant's psychological condition, his obstruction of justice was not willful. This is consistent with Dr. Sanford Drob's conclusion and is well founded and the Court accepts it as a factual finding.
The Probation Department concludes that an upward enhancement for obstruction of justice is not warranted, and that the defendant is eligible for a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
Therefore, it is apparent that the calculation of a total offense level of 9 is an error; it should be 7. The Criminal History Category is I and Guideline Sentencing Range is 0-6 months.