1

IN THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 vs. 2:14-MJ-127 

KEVIN FORD and 

CORTEZ STEVENS, 

 Defendants. 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND DETENTION HEARING 

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN E. MARTIN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

HAMMOND, INDIANA 

OCTOBER 30, 2014 

Proceedings recorded via CD. Transcript produced by 

computer-aided transcription. 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 1 of 49
 2

A P P E A R A N C E S 

FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

Diane Berkowitz 

U.S. Attorney's Office 

5400 Federal Plaza, Suite 1500 

Hammond, IN 46320 

(219) 937-5500 

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Scott L. King 

Scott King Group 

9211 Broadway 

Merrillville, IN 46410 

(219) 769-6300 

Kevin Ford and Cortez Stevens, Defendants, present in person. 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 2 of 49
 3

THE COURT: We are here in the matters of United

States of America against Kevin Ford, and United States of

America vs. Cortez Stevens, 2:14-MJ-127. Both defendants are

appearing by counsel, Scott King.

Good afternoon, Mr. King.

MR. KING: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And the Government is appearing by its

assistant United States attorney, Diane Berkowitz. 

Hello, Ms. Berkowitz.

MS. BERKOWITZ: Hello, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We are here today for the purpose of a

probable cause/detention hearing on both matters.

Mr. King, is it okay to proceed with both matters at the

same time? And you can address the issues with regard to each,

or do you want me to --

MR. KING: No, that's fine.

THE COURT: -- separate them?

MR. KING: No. We can proceed with both at the same

time.

THE COURT: Okay. Is that all right, Ms. Berkowitz?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. The Court has received and

reviewed pretrial services reports on both Mr. Kevin Ford and

Mr. Cortez Stevens. And to the extent that those reports are

not refuted by the evidence or by objection of either part, I

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 3 of 49
 4

will consider the information in each of those in making

determinations with regard to bond.

Is that all right with the Government?

MS. BERKOWITZ: That is, Your Honor. 

We do have reservations about the completeness of the

information as contained within the bond report.

THE COURT: Well, these were sent within a couple of

days, and they do a good job of putting together what they can.

But, obviously, if there's something to supplement it. But to

the extent that it's available, I'll utilize that, if that's

okay?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. 

Mr. King, is that okay with the Defense?

MR. KING: That's fine, Judge.

THE COURT: All right.

Is there any agreement with regard to bond with regard to

Mr. Kevin Ford --

MS. BERKOWITZ: There is not.

THE COURT: -- from the Government?

Okay. With regard to bond for Mr. Cortez Stevens?

MS. BERKOWITZ: There is not.

THE COURT: Okay. So we'll have bond hearings.

Okay. That's fine.

The Government has the burden. So, Ms. Berkowitz, you can

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 4 of 49
 5

go first. Do you have any witnesses, proffers, or evidence

that you wish to submit?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Your Honor, we would proffer our

evidence.

THE COURT: Okay. Which is fine.

MS. BERKOWITZ: I would start with Kevin Ford, if I

may.

Would you prefer that I remain here, or would you like me

to be at --

THE COURT: Oh, you can remain seated, and that's

absolutely fine. And, Mr. King, you may as well.

You can go to the podium, or you can remain seated when

you make any presentations.

MS. BERKOWITZ: As a preliminary matter, I would

note, Your Honor, that as the complaint, which has been

disclosed to defendant, makes clear, the defendants used social

media and computers to perpetuate a criminal activity. I

notice in the bond report that there is no restriction placed

on these defendants, whether use of the Internet or access to

social media. And at the very least, what I would ask the

Court to consider for these defendants is that the probation

department has complete and unfettered access to their Facebook

and any Instagram that they use, or any other social media that

the defendants use; and that, additionally, defendants be

prohibited from opening up any other social media accounts

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 5 of 49
 6

under any other names or aliases, and that that be something

that is part of, at the very least, their supervised release

pretrial.

With respect to Kevin Ford, we would submit that this

defendant still poses a danger to the community. And I have

some evidence I would like to present to the Court.

THE COURT: That's fine.

Is this going to be exhibits?

MS. BERKOWITZ: They are, Your Honor. 

And I've shown them to counsel prior to the hearing.

THE COURT: So, Mr. King, you've seen these exhibits?

MR. KING: I've seen them. I'm not stipulating to

their admissibility.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. BERKOWITZ: Your Honor, as counsel is aware, the

Rules of Evidence do not apply at a detention hearing.

Your Honor, I proffer and place into evidence Ford Exhibit

No. 1, which is a Facebook posting that Government agents

obtained through a review of Defendant Kevin Ford's Facebook

account. There is no privacy restriction on here. It

identifies as "bandmankevo."

And as you can see, on October 20th of this year, he

states in his posting, "Fuck a cop. Fuck a fed. Fuck 'em all.

Fuck 'em all. Kill 'em all like they will do to you."

MR. KING: I'm going to object to the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 6 of 49
 7

characterization of him having posted. The exhibit itself

leads with "bandmankevo shared Shawn Cush's video."

I think it's complete misrepresentation by the Government

to suggest these were words at any point iterated in any form

by my client.

MS. BERKOWITZ: Your Honor, I think you can listen to

the video that's attached that defendant makes part of his

Facebook posting. Those words are not in that video.

THE COURT: Can I see the -- whose picture is in the

purported video that could be clicked on and then played? Is

that email --

MS. BERKOWITZ: I believe that's Shawn Cush, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. But the Government is representing

that the words that are above the video are not in the song if

that were to be played?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Right. These are -- this is a

posting by the defendant.

THE COURT: Mr. King, do you want me to listen to the

song, or can we accept that on its face?

MR. KING: I'm sorry. What?

THE COURT: Do you want me to listen to the song, or

can we just accept that on its face, that -- I don't know if

that's in the lyric or not.

MR. KING: If, at the conclusion of the evidence in

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 7 of 49
 8

the case, the Court feels that there's a close enough question

to warrant listening, then, yes. But in terms of our

proceeding today, just -- you know, since we're just proffering

exhibits here, I want the record to be clear that what the

actual exhibit here is stating.

THE COURT: And you can do that by form of an

objection, or you can point that out to me because you should

have access to these as well.

MR. KING: Okay.

THE COURT: So you don't necessarily need me to

listen to it, then, Ms. Berkowitz, as well?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Your Honor, of course, is welcome to

listen to it. I listened to it. I did not hear those words in

there, but --

THE COURT: Sometimes it can be hard to decipher, but

it looks like there's a written posting. Then there's a link

to this video. So I'll take it for what it's worth. And I

think if I need to listen to it, I will.

MS. BERKOWITZ: And so I'm offering into evidence

Ford No. 1, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there an objection, Mr. King? I mean,

you had already objected.

MR. KING: Yes. I'll reiterate my objection.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to overrule the

objection and allow it in and the weight and where things came

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 8 of 49
 9

from. Then the Defense can point out why that shouldn't be

relevant in their own presentation.

MS. BERKOWITZ: Your Honor, I would also proffer into

evidence photographs that law enforcement officers were able to

download off of Facebook, off of the defendant's Facebook

pages. I am going to proffer that the following photographs

are of the defendant, Kevin Ford, off of his Facebook page.

I'm going to show you what's been marked -- and I've shown

it to Defense counsel -- as Ford Exhibit 2. This is a

photograph of the defendant with a gun tucked into the

waistband of his pants. And I would just note, Your Honor,

that this particular gun has a very light-colored body to it.

And this is a posting that was made on September 27 of 2012.

It shows uploaded on Ford Exhibit 2. And I would offer Ford

Exhibit 2 into evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. King?

MR. KING: Relevance. (Inaudible.)

THE COURT: All right. I'll overrule it. But,

again, the relevance and the weight is always up for argument.

MS. BERKOWITZ: I also show the Court and offer into

evidence Ford Exhibit 3, which is another Facebook posting.

This is from 10-8 of 2012. This is from Kevin Ford's Facebook

page. And, again, we see a picture from his page, which we

believe is Kevin Ford, with a gun, a different kind of gun,

dark-colored body that appears tucked in the waistband of the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 9 of 49
 10

defendant's pants.

We would offer Ford Exhibit 3 into evidence.

THE COURT: Same objection, Mr. King?

MR. KING: Was the indication made as to the date of

the photograph?

THE COURT: It was in 2012.

MR. KING: Same objection. Irrelevant as to both

issues before the Court.

THE COURT: All right. It's overruled. I will

accept it.

MS. BERKOWITZ: And I'd offer into evidence Ford

Exhibit 4, which is another Facebook posting on this

defendant's Facebook page dated July 8 of 2013. This is a

photograph. The agents, if they were called to testify, Adrian

Johnson and Carrie Holter would testify that they met this

defendant before. This appears to be a photograph of him.

It's on his Facebook page. And on this paragraph, you can see,

Your Honor, there's a gun sitting on the counter right next to

the defendant.

We would offer into evidence Ford Exhibit 4.

THE COURT: That was from 2013, I believe?

MS. BERKOWITZ: It is. July 8th of 2013.

THE COURT: Same objection, Mr. King?

MR. KING: Yes.

THE COURT: And the same ruling. I will accept it

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 10 of 49
 11

into evidence.

MS. BERKOWITZ: I would also offer into evidence a

posting from the defendant's Facebook page, bandmankevo, which

was made 38 weeks ago, in 2014. And this is Ford Exhibit 5.

This is a photograph of the defendant pointing a gun at the

camera. 

We would offer Ford Exhibit 5 in evidence.

THE COURT: Objection, Mr. King?

MR. KING: Same objection.

THE COURT: Same ruling. It will be accepted.

MS. BERKOWITZ: The Government would also offer into

evidence Ford Exhibit 6, which is another Facebook posting off

of defendant bandmankevo's Facebook website. That was posted

35 weeks ago in 2014, and this is a photograph of two firearms.

THE COURT: Objection, Mr. King?

MR. KING: Same objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: All right. It will be accepted into

evidence.

MS. BERKOWITZ: We'd also proffer, Your Honor, that

the defendant -- we rely on the complaint certainly in this

case, which outlines the defendant's extensive criminal

activity involving cracking cards, but it would appear that the

defendant continues engaged in criminal activity.

We have contacted the defendant's landlord, Cindy

Petrozik, I believe, is her last name. And she provided to the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 11 of 49
 12

Government, to Agent Halter and to Agent Johnson, the rental

application that was submitted by the defendant as well as an

alleged credit report, criminal history that appears to contain

significant false information. I would offer to the Court Ford

Exhibit 7, which is the rental application the defendant

submitted for lease agreement on the 60 East Monroe in Chicago,

Illinois. And that application is dated April 8th of 2014.

I would note -- I'm sorry.

THE COURT: So are you offering this into evidence?

MS. BERKOWITZ: I am offering it into evidence, Your

Honor.

MR. KING: I'm going to object. This is completely

irrelevant. Even assuming for the sake of argument, which I

don't, but for the sake of argument that every letter and every

number in there is a complete falsehood, it does not bear on

the issue of probable cause in this case nor in any way, shape,

or form the issue of detention.

The stated basis for the Government's motion for detention

is the defendant presenting a present threat of danger as

articulated in 18 U.S.C. 3142. There is nothing in this

document that is in any way, shape, or form probative of that

issue.

You know, this isn't a let's put on evidence of either or

both of these individuals being bad guys. It's should they

be -- is there no condition of pretrial release that will

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 12 of 49
 13

satisfy a legitimate concern of safety of particular people or

a risk of flight.

Now, the Government has raised this simply as a danger.

How in heaven's name is this in any way, shape, or form

probative of that issue? It's not.

THE COURT: Ms. Berkowitz.

MS. BERKOWITZ: Your Honor, actually, the wording of

the 3142(f)(2) is no condition exists that would reasonably

assure the safety of another person or the community.

Certainly committing or continuing to commit other

criminal acts poses a danger to the community.

This defendant has consistently, despite the fact that in

2012 he was contacted by law enforcement, despite the fact that

he gave up his Maserati, was forfeited to the Government as a

result of his conduct, he continued to engage in criminal

conduct. And I submit, if I'm able to continue to explain this

document, he's continuing to do it today.

On his application that he submitted to -- for the lease

on 60 East Monroe, he identifies a false Social Security

number. That's not his Social Security number. Those last

four digits, not his number. The defendant never would've

qualified for this apartment. And if I can go through the

other items that pertain to this lease application, or rental

application he submitted, it becomes very clear why this is

relevant. You have to look at the defendant and his behavior

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 13 of 49
 14

and how he -- how he conducts himself. That is part of the

analysis here. And this defendant, I don't believe, the

Government does not believe, can abide by the rules and

regulations that this Court would impose short of keeping him

in jail.

He does not -- there are no conditions that would

reasonably assure the safety of the community (inaudible) this

defendant would not continue to engage in the conduct that

we've charged him with in the complaint.

In this -- as I indicated in Ford 7, which I offered into

evidence, the defendant has a false Social Security number, and

he also identifies employment. He shows -- he identifies

Showtime Entertainment as his employer.

Your Honor, I would proffer to the Court that -- and it

appears in the affidavit, which counsel is well aware of --

that the Government has looked at Workforce Development records

for Indiana and Illinois for the past two years, and there is

no record of this defendant holding a job and working.

THE COURT: All right.

Well, Mr. King, last --

MR. KING: Briefly respond. Under (f)(2) of 18

U.S.C. 1342, it has to be a serious risk that the person will

either flee or obstruct, or attempt to obstruct justice, or

threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten or

intimidate a prospective witness or juror. 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 14 of 49
 15

That's the language of the statute. And it's not just

some generalized notion that any individual might, during the

period of time from charging until trial, maybe commit another

offense based on speculation on a document from April of 2014.

It simply isn't relevant to the issue.

THE COURT: Well, I believe that I'm -- I can parse

through, and the Government can argue, and the Defense can

argue what portions that this may or may not be relevant to the

issue with regard to bond. Obviously, a lot of it wouldn't be.

That, in combination of other things, may be relevant. So I am

going to allow the exhibit into evidence for that purpose, but

then everyone is free to argue which portions of that should or

shouldn't apply, and then I'm very well able to read through it

and find what is relevant. And then the Government does

indicate it has some more things that will tie it up. So I'll

look at that as well. So I will accept it into evidence. How

much weight it gets, I'm not so sure, but I will accept it into

evidence.

MS. BERKOWITZ: Your Honor, I'm showing the Court

what I've offered into evidence and has been marked and shown

to Defense counsel as Ford A and Ford B. And these are alleged

paystubs that were provided to the landlord from whom this

defendant is renting the condominium at 60 East Monroe.

THE COURT: Mr. King, would it be the same

generalized objections, or do you have something more specific

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 15 of 49
 16

you would like to say with regard to these two?

MR. KING: The same specifically generalized

objection as to relevance.

THE COURT: Correct. Overruled. I'll accept them

into evidence, and I'll decide the weight.

MS. BERKOWITZ: Your Honor, again, this indicates

that the defendant -- this is a paystub that's provided to

someone to obtain something of value, in this case, the rental

of a condominium in Chicago. He identifies that he is working

for Showtime Entertainment clearly as an employee because

Social Security taxes are being taken out. Taxes are being

taken out. And, again, Your Honor, as I noted earlier and

appears in the complaint, there's no record of Workforce

Development of this defendant being employed anywhere for the

past two years. So this is not correct.

The landlord has indicated that with proper -- that the

landlord has indicated that she's paid by the defendant through

money orders. Again, that is part of the scheme that we've

seen in this case, in the cracking credit cards case, where the

defendant takes the fraudulent checks, deposits them, and then

pulled the money out through money orders, or PayPal; and that

the defendant is paying about $4,300 a month in rent for an

apartment where he has no source of income.

Finally, we have what was provided to the landlord as Ford

Exhibit No. 9, which purports to be a credit report for the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 16 of 49
 17

defendant showing that the defendant has very good credit.

Under Equifax, he allegedly has an 801. I think the highest

score, Your Honor, is 860 or 890. This defendant has no known

source of employment, and yet he somehow has a credit report

that doesn't have his Social Security anywhere to be found on

it, and he's got a credit scale of 801. That's impossible.

These were all made-up names, which the defendant has done

previously. These are just made-up records that he's somehow

been able to convince the landlord to accept and believe as

true. She didn't double-check it. She relied on the realtor

who submitted this on the defendant's behalf, and they're

false.

Additionally, as far as obstruction goes, this defendant

was incarcerated, as counsel pointed out, in the initial

appearance in Plymouth, Indiana. And at that incarceration, or

during that incarceration, the defendant, the Government would

proffer, made some jail calls with his then-girlfriend Mercedes

Hatcher where he directed her. And there is, actually, a

search warrant, affidavit that is part of his record, Your

Honor, from, I believe, 2012, that the Court can take judicial

notice of that outlines all those conversations where the

defendant, as well as Mr. Cortez Stevens, directed Ms. Hatcher

to do certain things with evidence that's back in their

apartment. 

So the Government is concerned that these defendants,

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 17 of 49
 18

without any limitations being placed on them, and, certainly,

as the Government reads the file report that presently exists

for these defendants, there are no limitations that are placed

on them that would adequately protect the community from their

continued criminal conduct, particularly Mr. Ford's criminal

conduct.

I can address Mr. Cortez Stevens now, if you want, or

would you like to wait on that one?

THE COURT: Mr. King, would you like her to address

Mr. Cortez Stevens and then --

MR. KING: Yeah. We can do both of them.

THE COURT: You can go forward with Mr. Cortez

Stevens as well.

MS. BERKOWITZ: With Mr. Stevens, Your Honor, I would

proffer --

THE COURT: Just are there any exhibits?

MS. BERKOWITZ: There are no exhibits for

Mr. Stevens.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. BERKOWITZ: With Mr. Stevens, I would proffer

that, at the time of his arrest, in plain sight, we found check

stock, a huge box of check stock, check stock and a printer.

We have obtained search warrants for the laptop that was there

attached to the printer. We've seized the check stock.

Clearly this defendant continues to engage in -- there's no

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 18 of 49
 19

reason why this defendant, who has no known source of

employment, would have boxes of check stock. That is, again,

consistent with the criminal activity that's been charged in

this complaint.

The defendant is charged with creating these phony checks

that get deposited into a bank account and taking all the money

out of the bank account before the bank realizes what's

happening. And they do that by creating phony checks, using

the check stock, as we've outlined in the affidavits in the

complaint. And here we have, in 2014, Defendant Cortez Stevens

in his bedroom and in plain sight, the check stock, check stock

in the printer hooked up to the laptop, all consistent with

defendant's prior conduct.

Your Honor, we would ask that these defendants be detained

because there is no -- we're not aware of any method by which

we can assure the safety of the community or prevent the

defendants from engaging, continuing to engage in criminal

conduct short of them being incarcerated.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Ms. Berkowitz.

Mr. King, do you have any proffers or evidence?

Well, let me look at any witnesses. Do you have any

witnesses?

MR. KING: I don't have any witnesses.

THE COURT: All right. Then proffer?

MR. KING: Yes. By way of proffer.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 19 of 49
 20

First of all, with respect to assertion by the Government

that -- regarding Ford -- that, as I understood it, perhaps I

misunderstood, no legitimate source of income. Right in the

bond report it's indicated he is -- has been for four years a

rap artist, that most recently his last month's of earning.

During this month, his earnings were $6,000. And referenced on

page 2, he was paid in cash only.

I will proffer that musicians of, quite frankly, most any

description are not unusually paid in cash.

Now, there may be issues pertaining to tax liability and

all that, but that's not before the Court.

So the suggestion that because we don't have any reports

or any discernible records in the Workforce Development

pertaining to him, worse that he must be getting this money

illegally, is just not true. And the rap artist relates to

virtually every one of those photographic exhibits.

First of all, the language which they referenced in

their -- in the criminal complaint, the language about F'ing a

fed and all this other business, several points on that.

To their credit, even in the complaint, they list the --

they list out the language with slashes in between the lines to

denote this is a verse. This is a -- this is poetry written in

prose as they prepared the affidavit.

And, in fact, on the photograph, that's how it's --

THE COURT: Do you have the page?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 20 of 49
 21

MR. KING: Yeah. I knew you were going to ask me

that.

THE COURT: If you're going to bring it up, I'm going

to want to look at it.

MR. KING: Okay. It's page 10, paragraph 28.

Now, what's referenced in the complaint is law enforcement

also notes that Monday, October 20th, 2014, Ford posted the

following on his Facebook wall: "F a cop/F a fed. F them all.

Kill them/all like they will do you."

Now, that's what's referenced in the complaint that he

posted, what he did, but he didn't write it.

THE COURT: So that was the -- that's what was on the

top, and then there was a link to a video.

MR. KING: Exactly. And our contention is he had, in

the video, as is another performance artist, rap artist, who is

opining his points of view regarding the Ferguson, Missouri,

episode where a young man was killed by a police officer and

voicing a complete lack of approval of the police conduct in

that case, and it was from there that he, this man, is sharing

it on his Facebook page. And we're contending that the

language that came from that is what was posted. He is a rap

artist, and this is critical. It's critical on all these

pictures. Every one of these pictures. And you can see every

one of them is a posed shot. These are not candid shots of

this man next to a gun, with a gun, or with a gun in his belt.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 21 of 49
 22

These are posed shots. Posed for what purpose? Posed for the

persona, the image that is cultivated by many, if not most, rap

artists, whether we personally agree or disagree, anything like

that, that's what they do.

So the proffer regarding all of these exhibits, these

photographic exhibits, is that these are, in this day and age,

promotion of the role as a rapper. "I'm a bad guy. I've got

guns, and I've got" -- you know, I'm not a big fan of rap.

I've heard enough of my children and my grandchildren now,

that's what this is, and it is not in any way significantly

probative of the Government's contention.

With respect to -- so for four years he has been earning a

living as a rapper. He has a number, a number of postings on

YouTube accessible and downloadable through iTunes. My office

staff, beginning this morning, began going through that

process.

In fact, he has -- he is developing a bit of notoriety, a

bit of popularity as a performing rap artist. And, again, none

of those guns, none of those guns were anything other than

props for promotional purposes. It's kind of born out in

significant measure in the report by probation regarding his

prior criminal history.

THE COURT: Which part? We're still talking about

Mr. Ford, correct?

MR. KING: Yes, I am, sir.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 22 of 49
 23

In terms of -- we have a -- traffic, traffic, traffic.

The bottom of page three is the Marshall County, Plymouth,

Indiana, state court matter that's now been incorporated into

the charges here that I represented them on and was dismissed.

The only other thing beside that traffic is the

November 17th, 2012, showing a release without charging on

first degree murder, and that was literally a release that

occurred in less than 24 hours. A friend of his was killed.

The police rounded up a number of people for questioning. They

held him briefly to accommodate the questioning, and that's

what happened. There was no (inaudible).

So I believe, and our proffer is, that the context of the

exhibits the Government has put forward has to be in terms of

his career as a rap artist, and that is the context in which

the Court -- the Court should view it.

Mr. Stevens, you have before you the report, and we have

no additions, objections to it.

Just by way of clarification on the mental health status,

there was, coincidental to his leaving high school, there was

an initial diagnosis of depression. There has been no history

of treatment. There has been no -- any kind of critical

recurrence or any kind of symptomology that's compromised him

in any way. That would be the proffer by the Defense in this

case.

The other proffer I wish to make is during the pendency of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 23 of 49
 24

the prosecution in Marshall County, Indiana, in 2012, a couple

of points salient to that. First of all, both defendants, then

I think both residents, I don't know if it was Merrillville or

still in Illinois when the case started, they both posted bonds

in Marshall County. They both had an impeccable record of

court appearances during the pendency of the case which

included an evidentiary hearing on defendants' motion to

suppress. That was their track record that I'm personally

aware of.

Secondly, it was -- even before the dismissal of that

case -- that it became obvious that federal agents were

engaging in at least some initial form of investigation in this

matter because on one occasion, when there was a court

appearance for these two young men in Marshall County, agents

of the FBI were observed parked in the immediate proximity to

the courthouse and appeared to follow the young men as they

left to return back to their residence.

The relevance of that proffer is they have been completely

aware, not only from their own experience but the benefit of my

counsel, that they have been under investigation for

approximately three years for the conduct. Neither of them in

any way, shape, or form has attempted to leave the

jurisdiction, to leave -- I mean, crossing the line into

Chicago I hardly think of as fleeing the jurisdiction.

I want to make the Court aware of those facts.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 24 of 49
 25

The other proffer I have is this morning, arrangements

were made with the FBI on behalf of Mr. Stevens for the

lawfully possessed firearm at his residence to be retrieved by

an agent of the FBI, whose handwriting I can't read, but did

obtain a receipt for it, and I think the Government

acknowledges that that gun has been obtained.

THE COURT: And that was the weapon we spoke of two

days ago?

MR. KING: That was the weapon we spoke of two days

ago.

THE COURT: Does the Government -- are you aware,

Ms. Berkowitz?

MS. BERKOWITZ: We are aware, Your Honor, that with

respect to Mr. Stevens, that the gun was turned over by his

girlfriend, and we do have possession of that right now.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. BERKOWITZ: With respect to the guns that are

owned by Kevin Ford, we don't have anything.

MR. KING: And I was going to get to that.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KING: In discussion with Mr. Ford, I proffer

that there -- he has no direct or constructive possession of

any form of firearm. Verification of that, I'm open to

suggestions how that can be done. Of course, with him being

detained, I've had no opportunity to personally search his

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 25 of 49
 26

residence. In (inaudible) that, I'm open to suggestions of how

that can be accomplished because, regardless, you know, if the

Court sees fit to release them, it is a condition, and they're

aware of it being a condition. You can't be in possession,

have access to, any form of firearm.

But the representation is made, and this is part and

parcel of those photographs of him with guns spanning back over

years. Being mere props, there are no weapons present in his

residence or otherwise under his -- under his control.

I'm not trying to be weasely of the wording, but he just

doesn't -- he doesn't possess any weapons.

So that would be the proffers in light of the evidence,

the proffers that have been made by the Government here.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. King.

Ms. Berkowitz, any further proffers or argument?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Yes, Your Honor.

I would just point out, counsel asserts the defendant is a

rapper, but on his rental application that was submitted to his

landlord at 60 East Monroe, he says he's an executive manager.

He's an executive manager. Prior to that he worked as an

accountant.

You know, all we can tell, really, about this defendant is

he's a liar because he's not an accountant, he's not an

executive manager, and I'm not sure about the rapper part

either.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 26 of 49
 27

But, Your Honor, what we do know is that the defendant

does, on his Facebook page, on his own Facebook page -- and

this appears to be a picture from his own home, Ford No. 4 --

there's the defendant in his home with a gun right by his side.

Now, the defendant isn't saying these are props. And

certainly to release the defendant back into his home when he

is posting on Facebook -- and that Facebook posting was in

2013. And he's also got Facebook postings this year. This is

just 35 weeks ago, Your Honor, for No. 6. These are two guns

on granite countertop. It looks very similar to the granite

countertop we saw in Ford No. 4. These are postings from the

defendant. Two guns. 

The defendant is saying on his Facebook page he is

printing, "Kill cops. Kill the feds."

Actually, maybe I should be very specific as to what he

says exactly. This is his post: "Fuck a cop. Fuck a fed.

Fuck them all. Kill them all."

I'm sorry, Your Honor, but the defendant has got that

posted on his Facebook page, Ford No. 1, and then he's also

posted on his Facebook page during this year that he's got

firearms that appear to be in his home.

Counsel is representing they're props, but, frankly, we

have no proof that that's the case. They're guns that are

posted on his Facebook page, and he is not saying that they're

not real. 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 27 of 49
 28

We know the defendant is a criminal. We know he's a liar.

I don't know that you can rely on what this defendant

represents unless there's some serious conditions imposed on

him. And simply letting him go without any conditions being

imposed on him, or determining whether or not there are

firearms in his home, I don't think is a responsible way to

deal with this defendant.

With respect to Mr. Cortez Stevens, he is -- every

indication is he's continuing to engage in criminal conduct.

The fact that he's got check stock, a large quantity of check

stock, check stock in the printer, the printer is hooked up to

a laptop. Really, Your Honor, with someone who has no known

employment, there's no reason he would need check stock, but

that is consistent with his method of operation when he's

working with the rap boys.

He's continuing to engage in criminal conduct. So if

these defendants might not have gotten arrested between the

first time we saw them in 2012 and today, that doesn't mean

that they weren't continuing to engage in criminal conduct, and

they don't pose a danger to the community, and we would ask

that these defendants be detained, or at the very least, Your

Honor, that there be some restrictions imposed on these

defendants regarding their Internet access and their use of

social media.

There is nothing in the bond report that has any

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 28 of 49
 29

restrictions placed on either of these two defendants when it

is clear from the complaint and affidavit that these defendants

use social media, they use the Internet, they use computers to

engage in criminal conduct. And we would ask at the very

least, Your Honor, in addition to any kind of detention or any

home detention for these defendants, that the Court impose

restrictions on their Internet use; that they be prevented --

that they are required to allow probation to have access to

their Facebook accounts whenever the probation officer wants;

that they are not allowed to open any other Facebook accounts

under any aliases; and that they are prohibited from opening

any other type of social media accounts in any other medium

during the -- during their supervision pretrial.

Short of putting these defendants in jail pending trial,

Your Honor, at the very least we would ask they be on some sort

of electronic monitoring because, clearly, they are engaging in

criminal conduct. Maybe they're not going around dealing

drugs, but they are engaging in criminal conduct, and there

needs to be some record of where they are and what they're

doing during regular hours because all we could see them doing

right now is engaging in criminal conduct.

THE COURT: Ms. Berkowitz, what are the -- again,

what is the minimum and maximum penalty for what they're -- the

complaint has?

MS. BERKOWITZ: It's five years, Your Honor.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 29 of 49
 30

THE COURT: So zero to five years?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. BERKOWITZ: But as I pointed out, they have

engaged in obstructive behavior previously, and the Court can

take judicial notice of the search warrant and affidavit that

was filed in 2012 relating to that conduct as we outline in the

complaint in this case.

You know, the defendants are using electronic medium.

They are using social media, and they need to have some

restrictions placed on them. They cannot simply be released

under supervision, under no bond supervision. That's just not

going to work for these defendants.

THE COURT: May I have the exhibits? Thank you.

Anything further, Ms. Berkowitz?

MS. BERKOWITZ: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Mr. King, anything further?

MR. KING: Yes.

THE COURT: Any further proffers?

MR. KING: Yes. A counter-proffer.

THE COURT: You want to proffer and then also do

argument at the same time?

MR. KING: Okay. I'll proffer and then --

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 30 of 49
 31

MR. KING: The proffer is that the -- none of the

photographs, none of the photographs are from within the

defendant, Kevin Ford's, residence. Kevin Ford's countertops

aren't even granite countertops. 

Given that he was arrested in the early hours of Monday

morning at that residence, that is information that at least

was available to agents of the Government that affected the

arrest. So suggesting that a linkage of guns to that residence

is simply, I'm suggesting, is not born out.

The Government, in their motion for both of these

individuals, first of all, is attempting to stand the Bail

Reform Act of 1987 on its head. The starting point isn't

actually we lock people up because we're accusing them of

committing crimes. It's -- constitutionally people are

entitled to a reasonable bail.

Now, Congress decided in 1987, in response to major drug

traffickers being able to, in South Florida and other venues,

to post literally millions and then walk away from it, to pass

the Bail Reform Act. Its constitutionality has been upheld;

however, number one, the crime at issue here is not one of the

offenses that warrants a rebuttable presumption in favor of the

Government that there's no condition that can reasonably assure

appearance and safety. That doesn't exist here. 

They have the burden of proving, convincing this Court by

clear and convincing evidence that there's no combination of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 31 of 49
 32

conditions of release that's going to guarantee their

appearance or protect the safety of others. And the notion

that the possibility exists of any description of some sort of

crime happening is what is meant in the Bail Reform Act by the

safety is a reach by the Government that's completely

inappropriate. To permit that argument, they would be

warranted on any sort of suggestion of predictive behavior on

the part of anyone charged with anything in this system of

being able to be locked up without bond.

When they're talking about safety, (f)(2), it must be a

serious risk that the person will flee, or obstruct, or attempt

to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or

attempt to threaten or intimidate a prospective witness or

juror. 

There is nothing in this record before you to suggest

they've even, even had a scintilla of evidence of that let

alone met their burden, and yet they're here trying to have you

lock these two young men up.

And whatever the circumstance that they argue with respect

to Ford, they're completely silent with respect to Mr. Stevens.

To have (inaudible) detain Mr. Stevens under these facts

is, quite frankly, bordering on abuse, abuse of government

authority under the Bail Reform Act. It's just not right.

I mean, we can talk all we want. Oh, it's -- you know,

should the Court agree and release them? Oh, he's only been

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 32 of 49
 33

locked up for two nights.

Who else here is going to volunteer to be locked up in

jail for two nights on the strength of what's been put in front

of you? 

This is just wrong. This is not appropriate. The

suggestion that there's anything from that state court case in

Marshall County, Indiana, that I happen to represent them on,

that's evocative of any form of obstruction or attempted

obstruction, is absolute misrepresentation.

They got accused of a state crime. They never once tried

to flee the jurisdiction. They never once attempted in any

way, shape, or form to compromise the Government's case. They

followed their counsel's advice. A motion to suppress was

filed, which was, in my view, dispositive. The evidence that

was conducted, the state court judge ruled against the

defendants. They still maintained their obligations to that

Court up until the day the charges were dismissed.

They have no basis here for either of these individuals to

seek their continued detention pending trial.

They don't even have an indictment yet in this case. They

don't even have an indictment yet in this case. They want

these two young men to sit with no chance of liberty while they

get around the business of seeking an indictment from a grand

jury, and then the process of discovery, et cetera, et cetera,

begins. It's just wrong. There is no basis for detention of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 33 of 49
 34

either of these two young men.

Now, in terms of reasonable conditions -- there's still a

First Amendment in this country it strikes me. And the

Government's suggestion of a blanket, "You can't get on social

media," social media is today's telephone from my generation.

Now, I'm open, and whatever the Court decides, but have it

be reasonable. Have it be reasonable.

THE COURT: What do you think would be reasonable?

MR. KING: Well, what I think would be reasonable is

that they have the ability to open such accounts as they want

but to report to probation what the addresses are for them, and

to permit monitoring, monitoring because one of the standard

conditions of pretrial release is you not engage in any form of

criminal conduct.

And so it is within the purview of this Court to allow

pretrial services of the probation department to be able to go

on and have an assurance that no such conduct is taking place.

And if they believe there is probable cause to believe so, they

can file an appropriate petition in front of the Court.

That's reasonable.

THE COURT: I mean, isn't that a lot of burden on the

probation department? Well --

MR. KING: I mean, to check. I mean, it's --

THE COURT: Well, but if in the case where this --

the allegation is there's false checks being deposited, and

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 34 of 49
 35

there's a computer found in --

MS. BERKOWITZ: Mr. Stevens.

THE COURT: -- Mr. Stevens that has, you know, check

producing capabilities, so he's using the computer allegedly,

could be based on what he's charged with. So if the Court

doesn't eliminate that, then how is the probation officer

supposed to go in and know if those are legitimate checks that

are being produced or not legitimate checks? So how is the

probation office to know if that's not the instrumentalities of

some kind of continued criminal conduct, which we cannot be

allowing.

MR. KING: I only had reference to the Government

asking the Court for a level of restriction on access to social

media. That's the suggestion I had.

THE COURT: Well, there's another aspect of that as

well, though, because it was the -- in the complaint, it was

using the social media that is alleged to lead to the

recruitment of others to engage in this credit card fraud and

this bank fraud. So use of the social media was also, but that

can be cryptic at times. And we really can't have a probation

officer in Chicago asking another district to be looking at

someone if they have to be concerned about whether or not all

the person's social media posts, or different accounts that

they may be opening, could potentially be -- I mean, you said

yourself they've been under investigation since 2012. If these

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 35 of 49
 36

allegations are true, then there's been -- there's at least

probable cause -- I'm going to find that there's probable cause

to believe that these allegations are true. So how am I

supposed to just let them be out still using social media and

then just say, "Well, it's up to the probation officer to check

all the websites to see" -- how can I possibly assure that that

isn't going to be going on possibly again if I don't say, "You

can't use the social media, and you can't have the computer

apparatus?" 

Isn't that asking too much of the probation department?

So then if the probation department comes into the home

and, you know, they can see a gun. 

You can't have the gun.

They can search. We'll find the gun.

We can see a computer. You can't have the computer

because that would allow you a link to social media. It can be

erased -- they appear in clouds. They're all over the place.

So once they have access to the social media, they could have

access to the criminal conduct again, and that's what we have

to -- that creates a danger.

MR. KING: The only response to that is that --

THE COURT: I mean, the First Amendment part of it,

the violent speech or whatever, someone might consider

distasteful. I understand where you're coming from. But the

fact of the matter is if they're going to be out on bond, how

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 36 of 49
 37

do you -- when you've got possible criminal conduct also mixed

in with possible legitimate conduct, you can't ask the

probation department to be the police of that. So the way we

(inaudible) is to have it removed.

So my question is: If bond is going to be granted, will

the defendants agree to not have computer apparatus outside of

the reasonableness of having a phone and a texting on a

one-on-one basis so they can still communicate with people?

MR. KING: If that's a condition of the Court, in its

wisdom determines is an appropriate condition, they're going to

comply with every order of the Court. They don't want to be

locked up again. So, yes. 

I'm just suggesting, as we do this, we ask probation in a

lot of cases, most cases, to be not police, but to oversee,

drug test. You know, you mentioned the not having a firearm.

And suggesting, one concept would be, if probation has the

ability at their -- based on their schedule to check social

media, that has a deterrent effect. If the Court feels more of

a deterrent effect to avoid any continuation of questionable

conduct is necessary, well, that's the Court's prerogative to

decide.

But having --

THE COURT: So I'm just asking of any suggestions

that you might have, which I think you've shared. So you don't

have to share it more.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 37 of 49
 38

MR. KING: That's the only one I can think of. I

mean, I think it is legitimate under the facts of this case to

have some monitoring. If the Court feels it can't be done

without the access you mentioned, you know, have a cell phone,

and, you know, whatever, iPhone or whatever, then that's the

way it is during the duration of this prosecution, but

detention is completely inappropriate in this case. It just

is.

The Government is not authorized by law to simply say,

starting out, starting out, after you get arrested for the

first time, you can't have any form of pretrial release because

we think you might do something bad in the future unless that

something bad is run away from the jurisdiction or do some

physical harm to somebody, do something harmful, or an

obstruction.

The generalized notion of, "Gee, you might do something,

anything bad in the future," that's not a legal basis for

detention, and that's why I'm complaining of the use of that

vehicle in this case. I don't think it was appropriate.

Other reasonable conditions, great. They don't want to be

locked up again. I don't want to see them locked up again, and

we're open to it. 

I've already mentioned the circumstance with regard to

Mr. Ford's residence. We're proffering in good faith, in good

conscious. Based on information I have, there are no weapons

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 38 of 49
 39

in the house, and I don't have a particularly salient

suggestion for how we can verify that fact. I mean, I'm happy

to do whatever I'm equipped to do in that regard, you know, but

go with somebody from law enforcement. I don't know what else

I can do.

But I'm respectfully -- I don't disagree. It's a pretty

low bar for probable cause. I'm not disagreeing with the

Court's determination of probable cause to exist; however, I

do, on behalf of both of these defendants, suggest that

detention is not warranted.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. King.

Any last word, Ms. Berkowitz?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Your Honor, what the Government is

requesting, at least as far as social media access, is really

no different than telling a defendant you can't just, you know,

willy-nilly decide to change your address. You know, you can't

just move around.

So the Internet is sort of like, you know, your apartment

in the sky. It's your way of moving around in the social

system. We're just asking that these defendants be monitored

because, really, it's a problem.

THE COURT: Well, how would you suggest that they be

monitored?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Well, as I indicated to the Court,

one thing to be done with them is to have the -- to have

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 39 of 49
 40

probation be given complete and unfettered access at their will

to the defendants' Facebook account, Instagram accounts,

whatever social media they are presently, that we're aware of,

that they're using, and that they be prohibited from opening

any other social media accounts and any other aliases or names.

It's not an unreasonable request. It's the least restrictive

request that can be made that allows the defendants to still,

to the extent it is truly necessary for them to use the

Internet, to use the Internet, but not to continue to engage in

criminal conduct, or at least so that it can be monitored by

probation as to what's going on in their legitimate use of it.

Certainly we would do that with pedophiles who access

pornography. Although these defendants aren't pedophiles, they

are using social media in an illegal way, and they should be

monitored, and probation certainly has that ability to do that

in this case.

THE COURT: Well, in the case of pedophiles and with

child pornography, then we take away completely their access to

the computer, and the Government here isn't suggesting

completely taking away the access as you would in those

circumstances.

MS. BERKOWITZ: No, Your Honor. And we never --

THE COURT: By limiting no more opening of accounts

and then complete, inside the computer and from the outside of

the computer, monitoring ability from the probation department?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 40 of 49
 41

MS. BERKOWITZ: Right, which would mean that the

defendants could not have privacy blocks on their Facebook

pages or anything else.

So that is the least restrictive way. We're not saying

you can't have a Facebook page. We're just saying it's going

to get monitored by probation. And you can't put a privacy

block on there so that probation has to ask you to enter it, in

which case, you know, we might not be able to see what's going

on.

THE COURT: Is that acceptable, Mr. King?

MR. KING: Again, Judge --

THE COURT: You'll accept anything that -- any

restrictions if they're not --

MR. KING: Detained, yeah.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KING: My objection is to detention.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. BERKOWITZ: The other concern that we do have,

Your Honor, is there are postings by Kevin Ford with firearms.

They look pretty real, and he is posting very angry --

certainly a very clear position about the feds and about law

enforcement. "Kill them." The Government would be remiss if

we didn't bring that to the Court's attention and ask the Court

to make a decision as to whether or not that would need -- it

would be clear and convincing evidence that this defendant

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 41 of 49
 42

poses a danger to the community. Certainly we would take the

position that it does.

Clear and convincing evidence isn't beyond a reasonable

doubt. It's slightly more than preponderance, but it's not

beyond a reasonable doubt. It is certainly something worthy of

this Court addressing, the fact that this defendant is posting

photographs, multiple photographs over a period of years. So

this isn't just one random photograph of the defendant with a

gun. There are multiple photographs of this defendant with

guns, different guns, and a representation that we should kill

cops and kill the feds.

So there's a concern about releasing this defendant back

to his home where we believe there might be firearms.

Certainly we believe the photographs -- I don't know where

counsel is (inaudible) a representation it's not his home. It

is my understanding that the law enforcement officers have

proffered that is a picture, a (inaudible) picture of his home,

his apartment at 60 East Monroe. There are granite

countertops. I believe that there is an article in which this

defendant extols the virtues of those granite countertops in a

rap magazine article. So it appears that those photographs are

being taken in his home; that those guns may, in fact, be in

the home, and the Government is concerned about releasing this

defendant to his expressed desire to kill feds and kill cops

back to his home now that he's under -- there's been a

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 42 of 49
 43

complaint issued, he's dealing with federal prosecution, and

release him back into his home unfettered with no restrictions.

These defendants have no known verifiable employment.

That's clear from these bond reports, Your Honor.

I would request, at the very least, they be on some sort

of electronic monitoring in addition to any restrictions that

are placed on their access to social media and the Internet and

use of computers.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

I'm going to take a break to look at these exhibits, and I

would also like to see the probation officers in my chambers.

(Break.)

THE COURT: Okay. The Court is going to order each

defendant released on $20,000 unsecured bond with conditions.

And each defendant -- those conditions will be the same for

both -- so, please, both of you listen up as I read these

conditions.

You will submit to supervision by and report for

supervision to pretrial services as directed. You will each

continue or actively seek employment. You will not obtain a

passport or other travel document. You will abide by the

following restrictions on personal association, residence, or

travel: With regard to Kevin Ford, the Northern District of

Indiana and the Northern District of Illinois. With regard to

Cortez Stevens, the Northern District of Indiana.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 43 of 49
 44

MR. KING: Judge, could I --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KING: His current employment, the automobile

sales, he periodically is called upon to travel into the

Northern District of Illinois because they purchase at

auctions.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KING: And I apologize for not mentioning that

earlier.

THE COURT: All right. The Northern District of

Indiana and the Northern District of Illinois for both

defendants.

Avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with any person

who is or may be a victim or witness in the investigation or

prosecution, including co-defendants. Again, any medical or

psychiatric treatment, if deemed necessary, by pretrial

services. Do not possess a firearm, destructive device, or

other weapon. And it's not in here, but I'll say anywhere in

your possession, anyone that's riding in your car, anyone that

visits your house, anyone that you're associated with, no

weapons whatsoever.

Do not use any alcohol excessively. Not use or unlawfully

possess a narcotic drug or other controlled substance defined

by 21 U.S.C. 802, unless prescribed by a licensed medical

practitioner.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 44 of 49
 45

Submit to testing for prohibitive substance as required by

the pretrial services officer or supervising officer. Testing

may be used with random frequency, may include urine testing,

sweat patch, remote alcohol testing, or any other form of

prohibited substance screening or testing. The defendant must

not obstruct, attempt to obstruct, or tamper with the

efficiency or accuracy of any prohibitive substance screening

or testing.

Report as soon as possible to the pretrial services office

or a supervising officer every contact with law enforcement

personnel, including arrests, questioning, or traffic stops,

and do not open any new credit cards or financial accounts or

lines of credit. No access to any computers at all besides

cell phone, and no use of social media, and no social media

postings by yourself or by a third party on behalf of either of

the defendant.

Mr. Kevin Ford, do you understand these restrictions?

DEFENDANT FORD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you understand that if you violate

these restrictions in any way, that your bond could be revoked,

and you could owe the Government $20,000, and you could be then

incarcerated until trial? Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT FORD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

Mr. Cortez Stevens, do you understand these restrictions?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 45 of 49
 46

The same question: Do you understand that if you violate in

any way any of these restrictions, then you could forfeit

$20,000 to the Government, and you could and possibly probably

would be held pending trial? Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT STEVENS: (Inaudible.)

THE COURT: All right. With regard to either of

these cases, anything further from the Government?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Your Honor, the only concern I have

is with respect to what we believe may be firearms in Kevin

Ford's home. Is there any way that there could be an

inspection that's conducted? Counsel goes through and assures

the probation department that there are no firearms there. I

would hate probation to visit, and, you know, find firearms.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. King, you have offered. Can

you assure that?

MR. KING: Can I assure that there are no guns in the

house? I'm basing it on my client telling me, and I have --

this isn't somebody I met yesterday. But I think I -- now,

he's got to get released, get his keys returned to him. I can,

within --

MS. BERKOWITZ: I believe Mr. King has the keys to

the defendant's apartment.

MR. KING: I do?

MS. BERKOWITZ: I believe we turned them over to you.

MR. KING: Are these your keys?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 46 of 49
 47

Okay. I do.

I could possibly, tomorrow or Saturday, go there. I can't

do it this evening.

THE COURT: Well, he's ordered to not have the

weapons. I just don't think, even if Mr. King were to go now

and search the house and then, you know, somebody else were to

bring a gun, I can only order that he not have a gun. And I

can -- and the probation office can go at any random time, but

they're not -- you know, their access is still very limited.

So just like with anyone else.

So even if Mr. King were to search the house today or

tomorrow or Saturday or Sunday, that doesn't mean -- so the

bond restriction has to be reasonable.

MS. BERKOWITZ: That's fine, Your Honor. The Court

makes whatever findings --

THE COURT: The Court has made its order. I

appreciate the -- I just don't -- I appreciate your suggestion.

I don't know that it accomplishes what your goal is long term

anyway. So I'm not going to make that a request of Mr. King.

Anything further, Ms. Berkowitz?

MS. BERKOWITZ: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything further on this matter that

needs to be done at this time?

MS. BERKOWITZ: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do we need to set this for a status

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 47 of 49
 48

hearing/arraignment hearing?

MS. BERKOWITZ: Yes.

THE COURT: What would be a good day to do that?

MS. BERKOWITZ: After the 20th of November.

THE COURT: We have something set on November 21st. 

I think earlier today we set some things, right, Pat?

For a status possible arraignment if an indictment is --

so, Mr. King, if you would check your calendar, and,

Ms. Berkowitz, yours as well.

So we're looking at November 21st at 10:30.

MS. BERKOWITZ: That would be fine, Your Honor.

MR. KING: 10:30?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KING: That will be good.

THE COURT: Okay. So we'll set this for status

arraignment on November 21st, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. Both

defendants are ordered to appear.

And, again, you're ordered to appear at all, of course,

all hearings; and if you don't, then that's another reason to

potentially have your bond revoked.

Anything further, Mr. King?

All right. All right. Thank you.

(Hearing concluded.)

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 48 of 49
 49

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 

I, Richard D. Ehrlich, a Registered Merit Reporter and

Certified Realtime Reporter, certify that the foregoing is a

transcript of the CD transcribed to the best of my ability.

s/Richard D. Ehrlich December 27, 2014 

_____________________________________________________________ 

Richard D. Ehrlich, Official Reporter Date 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-mj-00127-JEM document 70 filed 12/30/14 page 49 of 49