infinite51

Mathew Weigman - pleads guilty against retaliation against a witness,

28 posts in this topic

Mathew Weigman- who has harassed several members of this community; has plead guilty to two federal counts.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark..._the_worlds.php

Content property of the Dallas Observer: By Robert Wilonsky in Crime and Punishment,Thursday, Jan. 29 2009 @ 1:42PM

"INDIVIDUAL PLEADS GUILTY IN SWATTING CONSPIRACY CASE

As Part of Plea, Defendant Matthew Weigman Admits Conspiring to Retaliate Against a Witness - Faces 13 Years in Federal Prison

DALLAS - Matthew Weigman, 18, pled guilty in federal court on Tuesday, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney, to a two-count superseding information relating to his involvement in a swatting conspiracy, announced acting U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks of the Northern District of Texas. Weigman, of Revere, Massachusetts, has been in federal custody since his arrest in Boston in May 2008 on related charges outlined in a criminal complaint. According to documents filed in the case, Matthew Weigman is blind.

Specifically, Weigman, a/k/a "Little Hacker" and "Hacker," pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to retaliate against a witness, victim or an informant, and one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and unauthorized access of a protected computer. While Weigman acknowledged that he fully understands that the actual sentence imposed is solely the discretion of the Court, the government and Weigman have agreed that a specific sentence of not more than 156 months (13 years) incarceration is the appropriate sentence in this case. Weigman is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on April 24, 2009.

The case against Weigman's two co-defendants charged in this case, Sean Paul Benton, 22, of Malden Massachusetts, and Carlton Nalley, who lived in Alexandria, Virginia, is pending.

In documents filed in Court this week, Weigman admitted that he and others, including Stuart Rosoff, Jason Trowbridge, Chad Ward, Guadalupe Martinez, and Angela Roberson (defendants named in the Northern District of Texas indictment of U.S. v. Stuart Rosoff, et al.) made unauthorized access to telecommunication company information stored on protected computers to obtain personal identifying information on their intended targets, and used software and hardware configured to insert or modify telecommunication access devices and account information for telephone customers and employees to obtain free telephone service or to discontinue service for telephone subscribers.

Beginning in June 2003 through May 2008, Weigman participated in multiple telephone party line chat groups with his co-defendant Nalley, the Rosoff defendants, and other coconspirators, and they agreed among themselves to make swatting calls to harass targeted individuals. The purpose of the party line was to provide a social network for individuals, many of whom were located in different states, to visit and socialize. To begin a swatting call, Weigman and others would fraudulently obtain the personal identifiers of certain telecommunication employees and impersonate the customer of the targeted telephone number, impersonate the telecommunications employee capable of initiating changes to the targeted telephone number, and/or establish fraudulent telephone accounts.

Other individuals associated with Weigman pled guilty to swatting-related conduct in the Rosoff case and have been sentenced. Weigman was aware as early as December 2006 that he was a target of a federal investigation when the FBI executed a search warrant at his house. He was aware that the defendants in the Rosoff case pled guilty and were being sentenced. He was also aware that a Verizon fraud investigator, who lived and worked in New Hampshire, was testifying for the government and providing the government with records and documents.

Weigman admitted that he was angered and frustrated by this Verizon investigator's interference and subsequent reporting to FBI, and that he wanted to retaliate against him. In April and May 2008, Weigman, Nalley, Benton and others conspired to retaliate against him by making telephone calls to Verizon and providing false and misleading information in an attempt to get him fired or reprimanded. Leading up to the calls to Verizon, Weigman manufactured evidence, such as spoofed telephone calls to Nalley's phone, in an effort to provide false evidence of the Verizon investigator's misconduct.

Then, on May 18, 2008, Weigman, his brother, and Benton drove to the investigator's residence to intimidate and frighten him. Weigman had told Benton that he had already placed numerous intimidating and harassing calls to the investigator and had been monitoring his phones. They had discussed what they would do if stopped by law enforcement, including providing false names.

When Verizon identified a phone line that Weigman had obtained by fraud in April 2008 and turned that phone line off, Weigman used the identities and authorization codes of Verizon employees to have the phone reactivated. He also used his ability to gain unauthorized access to the phone system to conduct unauthorized electronic monitoring of Verizon employees' phones to harass the employee and obtain information about the status of the investigation against him. He even directed others to obtain personal identifying information of Verizon employees to harass them and used his own social engineering skills to obtain information that his coconspirators couldn't.

With reference to the second count of the superseding information, Weigman admitted that in June 2006, he and others agreed to swat Victim #1 of Alvarado, Texas. Victim #1's daughter was a party line participant who lived in Fort Worth, Texas. Weigman made harassing calls to this victim's residence using a spoof card he had obtained from Rosoff. Other members of the onspiracy made a swatting call to the victim's residence that resulted in a police response to the residence on June 12, 2006. The spoofed call made it appear to emergency services that the call was actually made from the victim's residence. The conspirator identified himself as Victim #1 and told the dispatcher that 1) he had shot and killed members of his family; 2) he was holding hostages; 3) he was using hallucinogenic drugs; and 4) he was armed with an AK47. The conspirator demanded $50,000 and transportation and threatened to kill the remaining hostages if his demands were not met. On another occasion, on October 1, 2006, the conspirator called the Fort Worth, Texas, Police Department and again identified himself as Victim #1 and stated that among other things, he had shot and killed members of his family.

From August 2006 through October 2006, Weigman made more than 50 telephone calls to the Verizon Provisioning Center located in Irving, Texas, and using unauthorized access to their computers, obtained telecommunications services including Caller ID blocking and call forwarding. He also used these Verizon computers to establish new accounts and services to use in concealing the Caller ID of his coconspirators and to terminate services to victims. Weigman also made unauthorized access to these computers to obtain account subscriber information which was used to identify personal information for targeting new victims. Weigman bragged about these activities and while he was on the telephone party lines, he and Carlton Nalley would plan and execute their criminal conduct. Weigman, with the assistance of his coconspirators, obtained, via fraud, telephone service for himself and others valued in excess of $30,000.

Weigman, Rosoff, and others provided telephone numbers and pass phrases which were used by coconspirators to obtain unauthorized access to telecommunications service provider computers. They obtained this information by various means including "social engineering" or pretexting of telephone calls to telecommunications company employees, "war dialing," and trafficking in pass phrases and access information with other phone "phreakers," etc. They also used their unauthorized access to terminate services to individuals and to initiate unauthorized services for themselves and others.

During the course of the conspiracy, Weigman requested, participated in, or monitored harassing interstate communications to employers, landlords, families, and friends of multiple party line participants with the intent to damage the reputation of those participants, cause them to lose their jobs, or cause them to be evicted. He and the other coconspirators used their abilities to manipulate the phone system to listen to phone conversations without permission for both pleasure and financial gain. Carlton Nalley assisted Weigman in obtaining credit card numbers and Nalley stored and maintained them for Weigman and other coconspirators to use to purchase computers and other electronic equipment.

The case is being investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Candy Heath. "

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know who that kid is, but I have to say that in my opinion, "Candy Heath" is an awesome name.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is this guy? Did he used to be a BinRev member or something?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is this guy? Did he used to be a BinRev member or something?

I'm not trying to be a dick , but what does it matter..just leave it alone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so this guy is a monumental asshole and probably deserves to go to jail for 10 years, or whatever he'll end up serving... But let's keep in mind that the Government decided to not prosecute him in the original case. Essentially, this dickhead is going to jail for 10 years because he went to some other dickheads house - ostensibly to "talk." That shit does not sit well with me at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. Weigman, Jason R. Trowbridge and others have been members on this board in the past, and been participants on several of the conference calls where they had been recorded making false 911 calls to unsuspecting individuals. Many of the Ethical hackers and Security professional's with the Digital Dog Pound (DDP) in addition to well over 250 citizens, have physically been harmed and victims of these individuals. A direct result of these conspirators, attempting to impede the Department of Justice, and Federal Bureau of Investigation's inquiry into the SWATTING cases.

Edited by Infinite51
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a sec, that resume can't be the same Jason Trowbridge. :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just showed some stupid nonsense on FOX5 news here in NY about swatting. Nothing to do with Weigman's case, mind you, just a generic story on swatting.

They mentioned Randall Ellis - did he have a handle or anything? - and they played his 911 calls. He was supposedly 18 at the time, but he sounded like a fucking little girl. they also mentioned something about some recent calls to 911 in Middletown, NY and some nonsense about the calls being "routed" through Utah, whatever the hell they mean by that.

It reminds me of when they used to do a story on Spoofing every 6 months.

This is not really "news."

Edited by decoder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree, 'spoofing' and sending a SWAT team to someone's house unfortunately is becoming far too common. And law enforcement personal, telephone carriers, and the security community cannot keep up. The sad fact is that while SWATTING calls may not be anything new; these types of sadistic crimes still warrant media attention. These violent offenders, cause a massive drain on our: government’s resources, place innocent civilians, police officers, and emergency personal in harm’s way. I’ll be blunt THESE are SERIOUS crimes, not games nor pranks, which the media likes to sensationalize these crimes as.

Since we do have some minors on this board/forums - I would like to put this warning out **If you think about participating in these types of illegal activities and you have not learned by now that chances are you WILL get caught, and spend time in prison. You are just fooling yourself, and please don't think for a minute, that any sane person will believe 'that you didn't think anyone would get hurt.'

Edited by Infinite51
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With that said, I did some basic data mining- And was able to come up with Randal T. Ellis (http://www.infosecnews.org/hypermail/0712/14119.html). If you have access to Westlaw or Lexis Nexis you could also pull up the full court records. I cannot post them on here, as they are protected from public disclosure, due to licensing requirements these databases have.

Here's the documents we've been able to pull up http://partyline.ning.com/group/legalteam

They've said that they did not intend to harm anyone, but the recording on 610-404-5945 says it a little different. They meant to harm anyone that got in their way, or harmed their egos. What about Dialtek? Paul Hoffman, Jr. Why is he mentioned early as a co-conspirator in the Rosoff case, but not mentioned any where else? They already arrested Sandman , and Smiley. They will get the max at their sentencing hearings as well. It is terrorism over the phone, done to inflict terror. There's no respect, no real skills needed. I believe it's been documented a majority of swat calls was done using SpoofCard, which does not sound like hacking phone company software to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you know the news reports typically inflate the technical prowess of any sort of "hack". I'm guessing this happens for a number of reasons:

  • 1. The news media are technically unsophisticated, so they rely on the "experts" involved with the phone company security department to tell them how it was done.
    2. The phone company is not too keen on revealing a gaping hole in their security model which could easily be exploited by your average teenage kid, so they downplay their own culpability by exaggerating the level of technical expertise required for the attack.
    3. The news reports exactly what the phone company security department tells them, because:
    • a ) They don't know any better and they're lazy, so they don't bother to dig any deeper, and/or
      b ) They deem technical details to be unimportant because they consider their audience too dumb to know the difference anyway, and/or
      c ) The telecom industry either pays their bills (in the form of advertising) or else owns them outright, so any reporting that portrays the phone company in a bad light presents a conflict of interests for them, and/or
      d ) terrifying stories of a technically sophisticated teenage hacker menace make for good ratings

Edited by Colonel Panic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest TV news report that I saw actually did mention that Caller ID spoofing has legitimate applications. They mentioned outgoing calls from a call center having the need to show the main number as Caller ID, and something about business exec's calling clients from personal phones, but making it look like it's coming from the office.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The latest TV news report that I saw actually did mention that Caller ID spoofing has legitimate applications. They mentioned outgoing calls from a call center having the need to show the main number as Caller ID, and something about business exec's calling clients from personal phones, but making it look like it's coming from the office.

It's great that they will not make Caller ID Spoofing illegal, though obvious flags have been put into place, like calling a number from the same number. Most of the posts in the media about Spoof Card seems to stem from http://www.spoofcard.com/faq#q4 and other aspects of their FAQ. Very interesting...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe emergency services and the police shouldn't trust CPN. That would probably solve the swatting problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so this guy is a monumental asshole and probably deserves to go to jail for 10 years, or whatever he'll end up serving... But let's keep in mind that the Government decided to not prosecute him in the original case. Essentially, this dickhead is going to jail for 10 years because he went to some other dickheads house - ostensibly to "talk." That shit does not sit well with me at all.

Its so great I walked away from those partylines!!! Fuck them, and everything they thought they were!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay let me get this straight...

Someone calls 911 telling them they just did something terrible to the family..

Okay.. so why does the swat team have to just barge in like 'surprise' is an issue? They know there is no element of surprise because they "know" the call came from the house. I know the blame goes on whoever faked the 911 call. But if someone got killed, shouldn't some of the blame go on the swat team for their policy?

If a REAL call came in, why wouldn't they be expecting the target to be watching out the window? The supposed damage is done. Why don't they talk the bastard out first? If that doesn't work, then the cops can go Waco on the house.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay let me get this straight...

Someone calls 911 telling them they just did something terrible to the family..

Okay.. so why does the swat team have to just barge in like 'surprise' is an issue? They know there is no element of surprise because they "know" the call came from the house. I know the blame goes on whoever faked the 911 call. But if someone got killed, shouldn't some of the blame go on the swat team for their policy?

If a REAL call came in, why wouldn't they be expecting the target to be watching out the window? The supposed damage is done. Why don't they talk the bastard out first? If that doesn't work, then the cops can go Waco on the house.

That's a very good point. It either means that these SWAT team guys are either very fucking stupid, or murderous psychopaths.

One would think from watching TV and movies that they would have negotiators there or whatever. Guess not.

Actually, I think it probably depends on the area. In the middle of bumfuck nowhere, these "SWAT" members who are probably just local bumpkin cops that went to a one day seminar. I'm guessing if there was an actual incident and these cops just snuck around outside and then stormed in, the suspect would certainly be killed - and maybe even one or two of the cops.

In more populated areas it's probably much more like what you would expect. Negotiations and such.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since we do have some minors on this board/forums - I would like to put this warning out **If you think about participating in these types of illegal activities and you have not learned by now that chances are you WILL get caught, and spend time in prison. You are just fooling yourself, and please don't think for a minute, that any sane person will believe 'that you didn't think anyone would get hurt.'

Erm, what do minors have to do with the equation? Anyway, I second that warning. Someone I know just got through talking to a rather well known company that provides spoofing options about this, and they're planning to start flagging/recording PSAP calls. That, and abusing a service for helping people in life or death emergencies is about the lowest of the lowest thing you can do. The article above should be proof enough that people can get hurt from stupid shit like this, it's not exactly ordering someone a pizza.

I'm really surprised people in 911 call centers haven't started calling back to do some sort of verification or something, trust can be a dangerous thing.

Maybe emergency services and the police shouldn't trust CPN. That would probably solve the swatting problem.

Yeah, but what you have to keep in mind is people using VoIP providers have to dial 911 too, and not all of them set charge number as the caller's number.

Edited by ThoughtPhreaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay let me get this straight...

Someone calls 911 telling them they just did something terrible to the family..

Okay.. so why does the swat team have to just barge in like 'surprise' is an issue? They know there is no element of surprise because they "know" the call came from the house. I know the blame goes on whoever faked the 911 call. But if someone got killed, shouldn't some of the blame go on the swat team for their policy?

If a REAL call came in, why wouldn't they be expecting the target to be watching out the window? The supposed damage is done. Why don't they talk the bastard out first? If that doesn't work, then the cops can go Waco on the house.

That's a very good point. It either means that these SWAT team guys are either very fucking stupid, or murderous psychopaths.

One would think from watching TV and movies that they would have negotiators there or whatever. Guess not.

Actually, I think it probably depends on the area. In the middle of bumfuck nowhere, these "SWAT" members who are probably just local bumpkin cops that went to a one day seminar. I'm guessing if there was an actual incident and these cops just snuck around outside and then stormed in, the suspect would certainly be killed - and maybe even one or two of the cops.

In more populated areas it's probably much more like what you would expect. Negotiations and such.

i will give you a idea about police and swat. i work in a night club. the other night i called the cops to come to the club for a fight. we dont go outside and fight. so it was 2 guys that were fighting no big deal like 2 cops and handle that so not only do 2 cops show up but like half of the police dept. it was fucking insane. anyway purple jesus can tell you about how the cops are here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You raised a very valid point about why the SWAT team responded. To be brief, the police have to respond to every 911 call regardless of whether they feel it’s a fake call or not. If you listen to the Audio recording from the 911 dispatch call, located at http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/g...y-plea-bli.html. You'll notice that the call was very well rehearsed, to compound matter worse these individuals had access to the same databases and resources that police and law enforcement agencies have. Moreover, if you read the court transcripts released; you'll find that they also had monitor access to several phone lines, which effectively allowed them to listen in on live phone calls.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decoder, as usual, hits the nail on the head here:

In the middle of bumfuck nowhere, these "SWAT" members who are probably just local bumpkin cops that went to a one day seminar.

Pretty much every town in the nation now has their very own "elite" paramilitary force. They are made of regular police officers who take a little extra training in entry, room clearing, weapons, etc. The cost for this unit must be justified annually, if not quarterly, and deploying to a scene is a check firmly in the "see how bad we need this force" column. When standing in front of the council, the force can point to how they were "needed" 29 times last year even in my small town of 12k people.

Of course, it isn't really discussed that most of these raids are against people with a few grams-ounces of pot who sold some to a guy a friend knows, or (no offense to the kid), people who IRL are toothless tigers like lil hacker. A kid who's main method of attack or defense is swatting or turning off your phone/power is not what most people envisioned when setting up these paramilitary forces in their small towns, but hey, tasers were a last resort alternative to shooting someone with a .45 at one point in time, and now you catch the barb for not kissing sufficient ass while pulled over for 10 MPH over the limit. Thats the nature of the beast.

Sorry for the borderline off topic, but I was happy to see decoder nail the crux of the issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rightcoast makes a brilliant point right here:

Decoder, as usual, hits the nail on the head here:

Of course, it isn't really discussed that most of these raids are against people with a few grams-ounces of pot who sold some to a guy a friend knows, or (no offense to the kid), people who IRL are toothless tigers like lil hacker. A kid who's main method of attack or defense is swatting or turning off your phone/power is not what most people envisioned when setting up these paramilitary forces in their small towns, but hey, tasers were a last resort alternative to shooting someone with a .45 at one point in time, and now you catch the barb for not kissing sufficient ass while pulled over for 10 MPH over the limit. Thats the nature of the beast.

Sorry for the borderline off topic, but I was happy to see decoder nail the crux of the issue.

They go overboard with the "because we have it, we must need it" way of thinking even if there aren't any real reasons for an excessive response. I recently read an article about some dumbass let their pet snake get out, and the cornered it while it was halfway in the wall...and they tazed the thing - but then again maybe they didn't have a real "animal control" in the area at the time of night. Another over reaction was when they stopped someone who was in diabetic shock with a tire shredding strip, successfully stopped the car, but when he failed to respond to commands due to his condition, they busted his window and drug his ass out over broken glass and broke his arm in the process. Keep in mind he was already stopped and no longer an apparent threat and showed no intent.

I could easily see this newer school of though crossing over into the SWAT team issue, but I guess they never know if there might be any survivors in the place (of course they have to assume it's a real situation..they can't respond to a call like that like a car alarm in the mall parking lot) but it's a matter of time before someone gets scared, doesn't know what's going on, and comes out there with a weapon to defend themselves and gets gunned down in front of his family.

Edited by greyflow
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now