also of note- look who filed & was granted pro hac vice

Nathan Judish, Senior Counsel, DOJ, CCIP
If that does NOT convey the import of this case
I’m not sure what else could but alas I’m a chain smoking, alcoholic bored housewife so whadda I know...snort
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110482347
adding Nathan Judish (DOJ) USA v Chatrie is a pretty BFD
DOJ CCIPS - Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
cc @IdeaGov @lauferlaw @DirkSchwenk @DWUhlfelderLaw
you get the significance of this right? That this increases the stakes bigly
(CCIPS) https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ccips 
Again when I saw the Court granted his Pro Hac Vice that was a pretty damn loud bell that rang, because in beltway speak he’s one of if not the best DOJ attorneys in this area of expertise. He’s scary smart
Nos. 13–4625, 13–4626.
Decided: April 16, 2014 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wM2z5qX9JV1CCn6TYemZiacey3U2qZ3h/view?usp=drivesdk
remember how I said the “new” notice of appearance should really give you pause?
Welp - HERE WE ARE - the intersection of @TheJusticeDept reviving a past argument;
@Google has been witness to a robbery” do you get how expansive the DOJ’s argument is?

https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010517376?caseid=453993
I didn’t want to give oxygen
I never & I mean NEVER did I think @TheJusticeDept would GO THIS FAR
“defendant provided his location to Google to obtain its location-based services..” USA did not infringe his reasonable expectation of privacy when Google conveyed that information”
My jaw actually dropped. @TheJusticeDept is willing to GO THIS FAR. It is mind numbing. I’m not going to spend a lot of time dissecting their 6/12/20 arguments. As they are largely reiterative from the beginning of this case
I’m STUNNED
👇🏻Saved you $2.40👇🏻 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S4qbZPTU1C6MiANN3MC0PfaD6OBdFbeA/view?usp=drivesdk
MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Marlo McGriff by Google, LLC as to Okello T. Chatrie. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Marlo McGriff - see next tweet)
Clean up on Declaration Aisle 666
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010526343?caseid=453993
SUPPLEMENTAL of Marlo McGriff
Notice the date? 6/12/20🙄
“Until recently, a user could enable LH in her account settings during account creation..can occur during device setup...201 7 not possible for a user to enable LH solely by tapping on "YES, I'M IN"
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110526344
Remember I created a share-drive-folder and when warranted I update that folder
So if you don’t want to pay for the filings, you can pull them down from the share-drive I created
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
(you’ll want to mute me - I’m getting ready to up load a plethora of updates)
The Order ORDERS Govt to respond to the Defendant 2nd Subpoena by July 13, 2020
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110574395
Apologies for the out of chronological order
07/02/20 JSR I told you so
“..submitting a subpoena duces tecum... second declaration that Google had filed from Mr. McGriff... application requests that Google provide this information within two weeks”
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110567397
Remember that time people said I was “out of my depths” and I was “making a big deal out of Google’s 2nd Declaration” stating “I’m a delusional idiot”
Welp turns out WRONG AGAIN😂
Here you can pay the $1.50 or wait for me - your choice
Whispers oh SH!T
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010569370?
Do NOT besmirch Fed Public Defenders. The distinction of Rule 16 v 17 is a well grounded argument.
Subpoena is narrowly tailored
Again Google re-opened that door. Chatrie’s defense is doing what any attorney should do. Read pages 6-8 closely to understand why this matters, a lot
non-legalese
Google & Govt maintain that Chatrie voluntarily opted-in to Location Services
Chatrie maintains no he did not
Google’s (recent) 2nd Declaration showed a deviation
The Court & Chatrie now want Google to produce the records to substantiate Google’s new position
Better?
Here you can pay the $1.60 via the ECF link
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110567397

Or you can pay the bargain price of $0 & pull it down from my public drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EusKZQh2Ddn0RnGUDpUzNqL5TEDgZpMI/view?usp=drivesdk
-2 more filings, I told you that you should mute me
For the life of me, why this case gets ignored is BONKERS
As someone who reads, drafts & edits & complies with subpoenas on a weekly (and sometimes daily basis) this is a pretty damn specific subpoena.
Again Google opened the door with the “pop-up window” and Chatrie’s data forensic expert was like HOLD ON
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11uycDyXywTHX0JNOQoU9Ix9JsDWBohO3/view?usp=drivesdk
I’ve said repeatedly that this is one of the MOST important cases
It’s a (sorry for yelling)
CASE OF 1st IMPRESSION
The constitutional concerns are massive
7/7/2020 Consent motion 👇🏻
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189010574190
7/2020 Order Granting req Additional Time👇🏻
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110576105
Here you should be up to date - as I previously mentioned I created a folder for this case
In the event you forgot
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
-motion of amicus curiae Google;
leave to file documents responsive to the July 22, 2020 subpoena under seal, and good cause -the motion is GRANTED
-ORDERED Google will file a redacted version of the sealed documents on the public record within 7 days

https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110637727
RESPONSE by Google, LLC as to Okello T. Chatrie re 133 Subpoena(s)
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110651749
1 Exhibit A
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110651750
Exhibit B
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110651751
I need a few moments to read the 17 pages & upload to a public drive or you pay pay the $1.70 ReCap doesn’t have this
The reason you should pay attention to Google’s responsive filing - it’s complicated but I’ll try to explain it in simple terms.
Location Services FLOW
“user of the Subject Account opted in to the LH
service and enabled Location Reporting for a Samsung device on July 9, 2018...”
SensorVault
Operating platform of smartphone
Location History data collection depends on the App, Picture, Google Cloud, proximity to cells tower, hand off to the next tower. That's where things get a tiny bit complex bc you’re dealing with polarity & signal strength etc
Govt made sort of let the door open:
“Device Location” <NOT> Location History
Toggling the device-location setting on or off does not affect whether LH is enabled
-user’s Google Account
or
Location Reporting subsetting within LH is enabled for that device
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gNsFzO2BWfVilIOti_jiBziWyIsUB-1V/view?usp=drivesdk
I’ve updated the Public Folder on a public drive
USA v CHATRIE
There are 2 other recent filings specifically a 8/24/20 Order denying Chatrie’s motion re Exempt Speedy trial. It was filed improperly bc he didn’t go through counsel. I’ll upload after COB
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1--QD7Cl1BJPc2o6PCc9i5eccHuBcPzmk
Hello insomnia - I see that we meet...up again
Double snaps for the excellent penmanship
—>MOTION to Terminate Speedy Trial Hearing by Okello T. Chatrie
—> sent this directly to the Court
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110679043
Public Drive.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10xVoseLrGHbYS_5SwQuVEcupLXZaVlig/view?usp=drivesdk
Ahem... you do understand that geofencing is a pretty big issue - right? https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1/status/1302709968081051653?s=20
Oh you thought I had forgotten about this case?
no by now you should know that on weekends I do catch up - it should be noted
“Upon review of the Parties' briefing on the Motion, the Court ORDERS-the Parties to appear, in person...”
want my opinion?
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110778610
I’ll keep reminding you WHY this case is so important
STOP IGNORING IT
<not sorry for yelling>
it’s a case of first impression for EDVA & the whole of our judicial system
the fact the Court didn’t rule for/against for any party that tells me... https://twitter.com/File411/status/1220816046820679680?s=20
-the Govt brought in one of the most elite cyber prosecutor tells you a LOT
-meaning you should probably read The Whole thread because I provided you timely updated

-in recent filings both the Govt & google changed a significant amount of TL & details https://twitter.com/File411/status/1267925743012581376?s=20
In January 2020 this was the Govt & Google’s explanation of the GeoFencing Warrant & Location Services
you should reread it because it’s a baseline & will contextualize the next 3 tweets https://twitter.com/File411/status/1220826581003837442?s=20
March both the Govt & Google tried to play hide the data scrapes
In my industry we call this “the wobble while walking a tight rope“
You either catch yourself or you fall & go all in while trying to distract the defendant & Court of your previous filings https://twitter.com/File411/status/1241077738464776193?s=20
By May the wobble had fruition into an argument that absolutely strained credulity
hence why I chose to break it down in very simple terms
2 of 3 https://twitter.com/File411/status/1264359811300417538?s=20
By July 2020 it was a full on NEW story by both the Govt & Google
and then we have the point counter point into August 2020 https://twitter.com/File411/status/1281015442119761923?s=20
10/22/20 status conference
but most importantly 11/17/20 hearing on:
Suppress Evidence Obtained
"Geofence" General Warrant
Buick Lacrosse Search
Mr. Chatrie's Google Accounts Search
Willis Street Search
Mason Dale Drive Search
so that’s the update(s)
Yes friends even on vacation I still try to keep up -yesterday a Status (in person) Conference was held.
The following Stipulation was entered It is a BFD
I’m pretty sure it attacks the premise of the original warrant & subsequent warrants re GeoFencing
https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/doc1/189110818953
Here I uploaded the stipulation to a public drive. If you recall Chatrie’s original argument was the Magistrate Judge “May have errored” & the GeoFencing warrant was overly broad & Google later admitted how they collected location services & LE Req was.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/19s-Hmc6-4Re9aDA6_T9FzY6LrrQva8qq/view?usp=drivesdk
likely improper - that they used the GeoFence warrant as a data drag net so even if you didn’t commit the robbery your data was likely sent to LEO simply for ”being in the area” that stipulation tells me the Govt might concede this was an unlawful seizure & Civil rights issue
Meaning eventually the media will realize how important this case is - given the recent disclosures that ICE CBP & more broadly DHS have collected a ton of our data via GeoFence warrants & purchasing from 3rd parties. I assumed most would understand how important this case is..
Case in point last June I sent out a flare - and told you that the Govt‘s notice of Appearance was - a harbinger of bad shit to come. The DOJ brought in:
Nathan Judish, Senior Counsel, DOJ, CCIP
he’s a pitbull and I mean that in a complementary way... https://twitter.com/File411/status/1267925743012581376?s=20
You can follow @File411.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: