After a bench trial, Kevin Brian Ledgard was convicted of
five counts of unauthorized computer access in violation of 18 U.S. Code §1030, among other offenses. U.S. v. Ledgard, 2012 WL 3996855 (U.S.District Court for the Central District of California 2012). The case is so factually complex I cannot
cover everything Ledgard was accused of doing in this post. I am therefore only going to focus on the
unauthorized access charges and the facts related to them.
Ledgard and the victim – identified only as “F.G” in the
opinion -- met in “approximately 2004, when they worked together at PSI in
Burbank”. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra. He was Director of Finance and F.G. “held
an administrative position and later held a position as client services
consultant.” U.S. v. Ledgard, supra. They
began dating in October 2005; their relationship lasted for approximately two
years. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
Ledgard was married, “but told F.G. . . . he and his wife were separated . . .and
. . . were going to get divorced, all of which F.G. believed.” U.S. v.
Ledgard, supra. F.G. lived
with her parents but did not tell them about Ledgard because “he was married
and she wanted to wait until his marriage had ended”. U.S. v.
Ledgard, supra.
F.G. allowed Ledgard to take nude photographs of her, including
photographs taken
while F.G. and [Ledgard] were engaged in sexual
activity. . . . A few days after they were taken, F.G. asked [him] to delete
the photographs, . . . [saying] she would feel more comfortable if they were
deleted. . . . [He] deleted the photographs from his hard drive in front of
F.G. . . . [Ledgard] knew distribution of these photographs, especially to
F.G.'s family and friends, would be particularly upsetting to F.G. . . .
U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
In December of 2006, F.G. discovered Ledgard had a six-month old child
he had not told her about and began to “second guess the relationship.” U.S. v. Ledgard, supra. He “did not want”
the relationship “to end and gave F.G. excuses every month as to why he could
not make a commitment to” her. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra. F.G. delayed breaking up with him, “in part
because he had been threatening to distribute the sexually explicit photographs”,
“which she learned he had not deleted.” U.S.
v. Ledgard, supra. On
September 10, 2007, she ended her relationship with him. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
That, according to the opinion, triggered the “campaign to
destroy every facet of F.G.’s life.” U.S. v. Ledgard, supra. Again, I can’t
detail everything that happened, but I think you’ll get the idea from the
events outlined below.
After F.G. broke up with him and he started working
elsewhere, Ledgard tried to get a former co-worker to give him F.G.’s email
password so he could access her email. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra. At, apparently, around the same time, Ledgard
showed the former co-worker and others “a Powerpoint slideshow containing
sexually explicit photographs of F.G. along with derogatory captions regarding
the photographs”, which he said he was going to use to “`destroy her life’” and
send to “everyone, including F.G.'s father”.
U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
About a week before F.G. broke up with Ledgard, “she noticed
that her Hotmail email inbox was either fully or partially deleted and
eventually lost access to her account.” On the day F.G. broke up with him,
Ledgard “created email account tee.eye@hotmail.com and used that account to
send the following email to F.G. at her office:
`Whats up bitch? After a year and a 1/2, Im starting
to get my revenge on a dirty lying slut who puts shame on her people and
culture every day of her shitty, worthless life. It feels very good to have
justice right now. . . . I like how it feels to fuck you up. Ha ha ha!!!! . . .’
U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
The next day, Ledgard “accessed F.G.'s Bank of America account, . . . using
[the bank’s] online banking service without F.G.'s knowledge or authorization.”
U.S. v. Ledgard, supra. He made changes
that would
not only prevent F.G. from accessing her account,
but would prevent her from being alerted to these changes. For example, during
that session, he changed F.G.'s log-in ID from `[F.G.]’ to `[F.2007G.],’
changed her password, changed her security questions, changed her account
address (including zip code) and telephone number, and changed her email address.
U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
On September 13, 2007, Ledgard created another (anonymous)
Hotmail account and used it to email F.G.’s father photos of her nude or
“engaging in sexual acts”, saying she was having “unprotected sex” with an
apparently unidentified man. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra. When her father refused to look at the
photos, he resent them and “repeatedly” urged her father to look at them. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
Much more went on, which led F.G.’s family to fear that he
might harm her. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra. They contacted the police, who contacted
Ledgard and told him not to contact F.G. because it “`makes her afraid.’” U.S. v.
Ledgard, supra. Ledgard continued his activities, which included sending
the by-now 34 Powerpoint pornographic slide show to various people who knew
F.G. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
On October 3, 2007, police executed a search warrant on
Ledgard’s car, in which they found:
• Computer printouts dated September
11, 2007, from F.G.'s online Bank of America account, reflecting checking
account activity from May 7, 2007, through September 10, 2007.
• A computer printout dated September 11, 2007, from
F.G.'s online Bank of America account reflecting an `update’ to F.G.'s account
address and telephone numbers.
• Multiple copies of a two-page flyer . . .
containing five pornographic photographs of F.G. [he] had taken during their
relationship, along with vile and disparaging comments about F.G.
• Computer printouts dated August 24, 2007, from
F.G.'s Hotmail account.
• Account information for [Ledgard’s] email account
jb1745@hotmail.com.
• A receipt for the purchase of a Keyghost keystroke
logger purchased on July 30, 2007.
• A laptop computer.
U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
Based on everything outlined above and a lot more, Ledgard
was, as noted above, charged with unauthorized use of a computer in violation
of 18 U.S. Code § 1030.
In this opinion, the district court judge who has the case
is analyzing the charges and the evidence and determining Ledgard’s guilt on
each of the charges against him. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra. We, as noted above, are only concerned with
the five computer intrusion charges. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
The judge divided the computer intrusion, or 18 U.S. Code §
1030(a), charges into three categories:
the Bank of America charges (Counts 1-3); the Amazon charge (Count 4);
and the Hotmail charge (Count 5). U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
As to the Bank of America charges, the judge found that
based on the evidence
presented at trial, . . .
the Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) [Ledgard]
intentionally accessed without authorization a computer belonging to Bank of
America, and (2) by such access, obtained information contained in the records
of Bank of America, as alleged in Counts One through Three.
The
court further finds . . . that the Government has proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that [Ledgard] committed the misdemeanor offenses alleged in Counts One
through Three in furtherance of each of the following criminal
and tortious acts: false personation, in violation of California Penal Code section 529(a)(3), and intentional infliction of emotional distress, under
California tort law.
U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
As I noted in an earlier post, a violation of 18 U.S. Code §
1030(a)(2) is a misdemeanor unless it was committed “in furtherance of a
criminal or tortious act”. So the judge
here is finding that these offenses were committed under such circumstances and
are, therefore, felonies. U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
As to the Amazon charge, the judge found that based on the
evidence presented at trial,
the Government has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that (1) [Ledgard] intentionally accessed without
authorization a computer belonging to Amazon, and (2) by such access, [he] obtained
information from a computer that was used in or affected commerce or
communication between one state and another state or between states of the
United States and a foreign country, as alleged in Count Four.
The court further finds that the
Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [Ledgard] committed the
misdemeanor offense in furtherance of each of the following
criminal and tortious acts: false personation, in violation of California Penal Code section 529(a)(3), and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
under California tort law.
U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
Here, the judge is also applying the analysis noted above, to increase the
offenses from misdemeanors to felonies.
Finally, on the Hotmail count, the judge found that, based
on the evidence
presented at trial, the court finds
that the Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) [Ledgard]
intentionally accessed without authorization a computer belonging to
Microsoft/Hotmail, and (2) by such access, [he] obtained information from a
computer that was used in or affected commerce or communication between one
state and another state or between states of the United States and a foreign
country, as alleged in Count Five.
In addition, the court finds that [Ledgard]
accessed without authorization F.G.'s Hotmail account, and obtained the contents
of her email account, including, among other things: F.G.'s father's email
address; the August 18, 2007 email from F.G. to J.B. at his personal email
account; and the September 17, 2007 email sent from J .B. to F.G. using his
personal email account.
The court further finds that the
Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [Ledgard] committed the
misdemeanor offense in furtherance of the following tortious act: intentional
infliction of emotional distress, under California tort law.
U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
Later in the opinion, the judge explains how the facts
support his finding that Ledgard’s conduct resulted in the intentional
infliction of emotional distress:
[T]he Government has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that [Ledgard] committed each of those misdemeanor offenses as
part of a coordinated, orchestrated, relentless, and continuing campaign to
destroy every facet of F.G.'s life, including, among other things: (1) to
disrupt her financial affairs by taking away her ability to use her Bank of
America accounts and Citibank credit card account; to ruin her relationship
with her family by emailing graphic sexual photos of F.G. to her father, along
with multiple email messages disparaging F.G.; (3) to interfere with her future
career by sabotaging her chances for admission to attend the graduate program
at Alliant University where [he] knew she was applying; and (4) to destroy her
chance for a future romantic relationship with J.B. by sending him, and some of
his friends, the Powerpoint digital slideshow.
The court also finds [Ledgard] did all
of this in order to intentionally inflict emotional distress on F.G. [He] was
so obsessed with this campaign that he committed part of the scheme even after
being advised by GPD Detective Eric Webber that he was conducting an
investigation into the emails and activity on F.G.'s online accounts, and after
being told not to contact F.G. either directly or indirectly through third
parties because such contact made her afraid.
Accordingly, based on the above, the
court finds that the Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that each
of [Ledgard’s] misdemeanor offenses was committed in furtherance of [his]
campaign to cause the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon F.G.
U.S. v. Ledgard, supra.
I assume sentencing has been, or will be set. Unfortunately, I can't find the opinion online,
so you can read it for yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment