Donate for the Cryptome archive of files from June 1996 to the present

21 December 2013

Lavabit Document Observation

Mr. Atkinson's website offers a large compendium of counterspying documents.

A sends:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James M. Atkinson <jmatk[at]>
Date: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 7:17 AM
Subject: [TSCM-L] {6544} Lavabit Document Observation
To: TSCM-L Mailingin List <tscm-l2006[at]>

Through the Lavabit document just recently posted on Cryptome

I would like to point out the following.

On page 61 of 148, and at other places on the document posted, the name of the person of interest is blacked out, however this name can be derived by character position analysis using the flaws present in the Court Rules.

In the Courts rules, it provides that the captions are to be in all caps, but this requirement actually makes it substantially easier to determine the censored details, as "ALL CAPS" creates a diffrent pitch and spacing to "all caps." Thus, the Caption on page 61 of 148 reflects 17 missing characters in the line which ends with "THAT IS"

This is also visible in a number of other captions as ell.

Thusly, the uncensored text of the line would read as "EDWARD J. SNOWDEN THAT IS" but it could also be read as "MR. EDWARD NOWDEN" as well with 18 characters in the same space.

On page 70 of 148, and name "Edward Snowden" is mentioned in line 2, or paragraph C.

On page 9 of 148, the signature is illegible, plus there is no name, jurisdiction (on the signature), or anything else to provide any legitimacy to this order. The order is likely invalid, and a fictional documents created by the FBI. They do have a proven hostory of faking orders like this in which they drop the judges/magistrtates name form on a faked document, but place hat appears to be a legitimate signature, then the faked documents is fed to the clerk of court and is filed into the record, with no mention of whom the judge/magistrate actually is.

The motion to compel fails to address the order filed on 10 June 2013, and does not actually mention that an order (June 10, 2013) was signed, and is in the record, or maybe I am missing something.

Where is the "Notice of Preservation" and the matching "Order of Preservation" that would be normally issued in such a case as this?

The magistrate judge who signed the order on page 16 of 148, likley did not bother to read the order, and had a remarkable lack of understanding as of what a "Pen Register" is and what a "trap and trace" device actually is, or she would not have attached her signature (notice that her signature is not the same as that found on page 9.

Also, make note that pages 16 and 15 or 148 were authored and signed with a "/s/" and not with an actual signature, and that at a later time (after the authoring of the document) initials were added next to a signature block, and then some sort of illegible seal added. This magistrtate judge also lacks the authority to order the decryption of encrypted digital content by means of a trap and trace order against a company which does not keep such records, and which does not possess the capabilities of providing such a service. The magistrate steps wide outside to bounds of both her jurisdiction, and likely outside the bounds of her competencies in technical matters (and is being playing for the fool by the FBI). Also, the data that she is "ordering" to be produced is not described in a meaningful way, and there are no FBI affidavits that such information even is known to exist at Lavabit. Or, the FBI knows tha data exsists but they do not wish to reveal to the court that they have been running an illegal mass surveillance operation.

The magistrate also demonstrates her lack of knowledge in the order by directing it at the service provider (Lavabit) instead of the actual fiber provider. Thus, the pen/trap is supposed to be on the company that provided connectivity services to Lavabit, not on Lavabit itself. If this as a legitimate trap/trace order for information then it would be directed against Sprint, AT&T, MCI or the other carrier who provides connectivity from Lavabit to the outside world... but wait, those taps are already in place, the leakd NSA/Snowden documents prove that it is in place, so this Magistrate is just diddlying around and trying to unlawfully "bully around Lavabit" but Lavabit is the utterly wrong place to direct a pen tap, or trap and trace. She should not be signing orders that she does not understand, if in fact that is her initials are on the order.

Lavabit as already tapped, the already leakd ECI classified documents prove that it was. Everything that the FBI was seeking is/was already in the possession of the government prior to the issuing of this (likely fake) court order. Lavabit actually had no reson to believe that the various orders were little more then unintelligible jibberish.

Again on page 19 of 148 we see a stamped "/s/" that does not align in the same manner as we also see on page 16, so documents are not being signed/initialed in the same way, and there is no seal on this page either, like we see on page 16. In fact CAREFULLY look at the signature blocks on page 16 and 19 and notice the alignment issues and that the frigging signatures (of the same person) are not even a close match. So, who exactly is signing these orders? What else did she sign (or the government claims she signed) on the same day, and has she actually at work on that day and can the government prove that she was actually in the building? I mention that because in the past there have been cases here a magistrate's name and signature was present on a document that was attributed to them, when it as medically impossible for them to have actaully signed anything from a bed in the intensive care unit, as they were in a coma at a time (but oh, heck did they sign a huge volume of "court orders" while in said coma). Pay careful attention to the signature blocks, the initials, and then consider the fact that Lavabit was utterly the wrong level to be directing such an order.

Granted Lavabit MIGHT possess a very limited amount of data, used by the customer to establish service originally, but there is no probable cause to believe or suspect that Lavabit was in possession of 99% of the data the court was ordering be produced, if in fact anybody in a black cocktail dress actually read the document before they initially it.

Then read down to page 22 of 148, in where it is mentioned that Lavabit DID provide what little data it had, but that the the FBI wanted data that exceeded reality, and was having a temper tantrum. In fact very carefully look at the timeline that the government lists at this moment in time, in that the FBI DID NOT actually have an order in hand when they ambushed the Lavabit founder at his home, and it took them a while of fishing around to get a copy (of a document they forgot to bring with them). It was wise for the Lavabit founder to stop talking to the FBI and to invoke his right to counsel, as the agents were claiming to have a court order, which they did not actually have, and given the FBI history of document fabrication (and that the document provided to Lavabit was very "hinky and convienent") there is every reason for Lavabit to suspect the FBI had no such order and was confabulating one on-site as it were.

Back up and actually CLOSELY look at page 22, and how the agents originally (think of an FBI agent sitting in a van, a few hundred feet away, running recording devices, an creating an order and initials out of a vacuum, the speed suggests a document/order being forged, so look at the /s/ on one page and initials, and the unmatching ones on another).

I do not know if the FBI agents fakeed the order, but there is a proven history of them doing so in the past, and there is also a grand tradition of judges and magistrates signing orders that they do not understand.

The signature of Judge Hilton on page 29 of 148 is a "clean signuture" unlike the "unclean signatures" present on documents (possible fictional orders) attributed to the magistrate.

The "description of things to be brought" on page 30 of 148 can not be brought if they do not exist in the possession of Lavabit.

On page 32 or 148, I would hope that his honor consulted the 4th and 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because there is no Affidavit attached that overcomes Franks. Indeed the warrant gives a location of "Attachment B" but at no place in Attachment B is an actual location given. The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled that the place must be specified in the warrant (which it does not), and this is what is called in the legal profession (a royal fuck up, by a sitting federal judge, assuming that he actually read the document, before signing it, and did not merely pencil whip it). As the warrant describes a item to be seized, but fails to mention the location where it may be found, it is likely the FBI got this warrant to illegally burglarize Lavabit and copy their hard drives and tapes, covertly.

So on the same day that Lavabit was in court the Judge issues a highly defective search arrant, so the FBI cna illegally search a place that is not included or references in the warrant, while the founder of Lavabit is in Alexandria (and the place to be searched presumedly in Dallas).

On page 38 or 148, e can count don the charactrs missing of the censored verison to be "MR. EDWARD J. SNOWDEN" or roughly 20-21 characters.

On page 38 or 148, were is the application for the search warrant, the affidavit for the search warrant (if on actually exists), and so on.

Keep in mind, that at the heart of the entire Snowden Affair is federal judges illegally issuing search warrants, not merely against Snowden, but rather on everybody in the country (illegally), and that a select group in Congress who are hell-bent on destroying this nation looked the other way.

So on page 42 or 148 e se that the "Pen/Trap" function was not already on the Lavabit system, and that it woudl have to be programmed, and not merely installed. Insisting that the government pay for the time required to design a section of code to implement a filter is within a reasonable request and the prices quoted by Lavabit is miniscule when considering the hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. Government has paid for other providers to develop similar code. If the government refuses to pay for very reasonable time to write the code up front, then the founder of Lavabits can not be compelled to do the computer programming for free (after all slavery is no longer legal in most states).

On page 42, $375,000 would be a more "reasonable" amount given that any computer programmign would have to be carefully crafted, tested and documnted prior to deployment, and that giving the FBI and fully unrestricted backdoor into a system is the wet dram of the FBI, but such access is prohibited by law. Of course it also says that a sitting judge is supposed to actually read and understand what they sign off on, but what the hell, the Constitution is widely regarded as a minor inconvenience by the FBI in such cases.

On page 48 and 49, the Judge is way out of line, as the founder of Lavabit has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel, and the court is directly denying (or is appearing to deny) him that right.

On page 50 or 148, line 12-14 the government lies, or is repeating a lie told to it by the FBI.

Also, notice page 52 or 148, line 15-19, which suggests that the government was seeking the encryption keys for ALL USERS and not merely for Snowden.

Page 53 or 148 suggests the judge has ben played for the fool by the FBI.

Then on page 54 of 148 the judge starts to realize the government has played him for a fool. re: Page 52, line 24-25 and Page 53, line 1, and then the court on page 54, lines 3-6.

Page 56, line 9... the judge totally does not understand that the government is up to.

Page 57, I note that at no time has Mr. Levison refused to install, and then look at page 57, line 23.

Very carefully read the top of page 70 or 148, re: Keene.

On page 74 or 148, read footnote #1

Page 75 or 148, in regards to "General Warrants" these are forbidden by law, as per the Supreme Court, and then the entirety of page 76.

See page 79, second paragraph.

Page 85 of 148 the government fails to disclose to the court that the government has long ago broken SSL, TSL, HTTPS, and other "secure protocols" and that anyting transmittd by use of such "secure mthods" is not actually secure or private. In fact, the leaked Snowden documents deliver a lot of specific programs inside the NSA/FBI to violate these "secure systems"

On page 92 or 148, there is mention that the government installed the tap at the service provider of Lavabit, and not on Lavabit itself (see my comments earlier up), and that the governmnt is sucking up all e-mail of all users, at all times.

Page 95 of 148, item B(2) the warrant in question does not specify a place or the person, merely a thing.

Page 111 of 148, Ahem, Mr. Binnall, be sure to mention that the warrant does not state a "place of person" merley a thing, and then the ECI matter of SSL alraedy being compromised.

Page 117 of 148, line 22 and 23, "HORSE SHIT"

Page 117 of 148, line 16 and 17, the Judge rally should get a comedy show, in Vegas, black cocktail dress and all.

Pay careful note of page 119, line 7 to 14

Page 121, line 7 - 17, "BULL SHIT"

Page 132 - 137, if you understand how ciphers are moved and transmitted, you will recognize that these keys are legitimate and that the government (or somebody) copied these pages on a copier, then lightened the copy, and then made a copy, then a copy of a copy, and then scanned in these deliberately tampered codes to tho court in order to deceive the court. Indeed the court WAS in fact misled by the governments fiction, and the court IMHO acted improperly, as Lavabit did as the court ordered, but not what the government wanted, so they had a little temper tantrum.

Fuck the Pigs.



James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
Granite Island Group
(978) 381-9111 jmatk[at]


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TSCM-L Professionals List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to tscm-l2006+unsubscribe[at]
For more options, visit