Common use of Factual Basis Clause in Contracts

Factual Basis. 6. Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charges contained in Counts One and Count Two of the indictment. In pleading guilty, defendant admits the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: On or about September 19, 2010, XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX, attempted, without lawful authority, to use a weapon of mass destruction against people and property in a manner that would have affected interstate and foreign commerce in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2332a(a)(2)(D), and attempted to damage and destroy, by means of an explosive, real property affecting interstate and foreign commerce in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i). In early June 2010, XXXXXXX told a law enforcement cooperating source (hereinafter, the “CS”) that he wanted to commit acts of violence in Chicago for monetary gain and to cause political instability. The CS asked XXXXXXX about his ideas for a terrorist attack. XXXXXXX suggested bombing the commercial area surrounding Wrigley Field as one option. XXXXXXX explained that an attack against an entertainment center like the one near Wrigley Field could “paralyze” Chicago commerce. In response, the CS told XXXXXXX that he/she had “friends” who might be willing to pay XXXXXXX to perpetrate such an attack. Over the following weeks, the CS and XXXXXXX continued to discuss XXXXXXX’x ideas for perpetrating a terrorist act. XXXXXXX indicated that he wanted to meet with the CS’s contacts and was anxious to act against Chicago. The CS arranged a meeting between XXXXXXX and an individual the CS represented to be one of his/her purported contacts on July 8, 2010. Then unbeknownst to XXXXXXX, the contact was an undercover FBI task force officer (hereinafter “UC-1”). During their initial meeting, XXXXXXX told UC-1 that he had been contemplating how to perpetrate terrorist attacks in Chicago. XXXXXXX stated that he believed that a series of escalating violent acts could be used to undermine the city’s political establishment. When asked by UC-1 what XXXXXXX was personally willing to do, XXXXXXX indicated that he would be willing to facilitate a car bombing or the assassination of Chicago police officers. XXXXXXX assured UC-1 that he wanted to participate in some violent act. When asked if he was concerned about those who would be hurt by such violence, XXXXXXX stated that casualties were the inevitable result of what he termed “revolution.” XXXXXXX met with UC-1 and an individual who UC-1 introduced to XXXXXXX as a “good friend” and “brother” on July 21, 2010. Then unbeknownst to XXXXXXX, UC- 1’s associate was an undercover FBI special agent (hereinafter, “UC-2” and, together with UC-1, the “UCs”). UC-1 explained to XXXXXXX that he had told UC-2 about their July 8, 2010 meeting and that UC-2 was interested in hearing XXXXXXX’x ideas concerning the commission of a terrorist act. XXXXXXX then told UC-2 his idea of perpetrating a series of escalating violent attacks designed to damage Chicago’s sense of security, its economy, and trust in leadership. HASSOUN identified Chicago entertainment establishments, civic buildings, commercial high-rises, and transportation infrastructure as potential targets. During their July 21, 2010 meeting, the UCs gave XXXXXXX a digital camcorder to videotape potential targets. XXXXXXX agreed. XXXXXXX traveled to the commercial area surrounding Wrigley Field and filmed potential targets on August 8, 2010, August 12, 2010 and August 14, 2010. XXXXXXX’x video focused on the bars, restaurants and potential security in the areas he observed. As he filmed, XXXXXXX commented on the potential tactical advantages and risks of perpetrating an attack at the various locations he observed. In particular, XXXXXXX noted the most populated bars and restaurants, and identified visible police presence and street security cameras. During their July 21, 2010 meeting, XXXXXXX told the UCs that he wanted to dedicate himself to the proposed attack and asked the UCs effectively to employ him planning the bombing. The UCs agreed and from July 21, 2010 to September 18, 2010, the UCs paid HASSOUN $2,700. XXXXXXX met with the UCs again on August 16, 2010 to debrief the UCs on his reconnaissance efforts. XXXXXXX provided the UCs the camcorder he had used to record his surveillance. After reviewing the videos, the UCs and XXXXXXX discussed areas that could be targeted to cause maximum casualties with minimal operational difficulty and risk. The UCs and HASSOUN met again on August 31, 2010 to pick a final target location and discuss operational logistics. The UCs and XXXXXXX traveled to the proposed target chosen by XXXXXXX – a trash recepticle located at approximately 0000 Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx in Chicago, Illinois. XXXXXXX told the UCs he would deposit a proposed bomb in the container on a Saturday night when the area would be crowded with bar patrons. The target trash recepticle chosen by XXXXXXX was located approximately five feet from the glass windows of a sports-themed bar that sold alcohol products manufactured throughout the United States and abroad. XXXXXXX told the UCs that he chose the particular location because it presented the opportunity to inflict a greater number of casualties than alternate locations. The UCs and XXXXXXX agreed to execute their planned attack on the night of September 18, 2010. As prearranged, XXXXXXX met with the UCs on the evening of September 18, 2010 at a hotel located in Rosemont, Illinois. There, the UCs provided HASSOUN a backpack that contained what UC-1 revealed as an explosive device. The enclosed device was comprised of a silver, one-gallon paint can, the interior of which was lined with ball- bearings, and which contained seven cylindrical tubes that appeared to be explosive material, and which were bound by black electrical tape, two of which were connected to blasting caps with electrical wire leads attached to a clear plastic box containing a 9 volt battery, blue activation light and a white mechanical timer. The UCs told XXXXXXX the device was a bomb and generally explained how it was constructed, would be armed and detonated. The UCs provided HASSOUN with a grey shopping bag which, they explained, could be used to conceal further the backpack and its enclosed bomb. Prior to September 18, 2010, the UCs had, on a number of different occasions, told XXXXXXX that they did not need his assistance with the execution of the planned attack and that he could withdraw from their plan at any time. During their July 21, 2010 meeting, the UCs questioned XXXXXXX concerning whether he wanted to participate in the actual, planned attack. XXXXXXX assured the UCs that he did. During that meeting, UC-1 told XXXXXXX that he could “walk away” at any time. XXXXXXX responded by stating that he had come to the decision to perpetrate a terrorist act in Chicago on his own. When questioned by the UCs again on August 16, 2010, XXXXXXX again assured the UCs that he wanted a role in the execution of the proposed bombing. The UCs and XXXXXXX left the hotel at approximately 11:37 p.m. on the evening of September 18, 2010, and traveled together in a rented, white van from Rosemont, Illinois to the target area. While in route, the UCs and XXXXXXX discussed how the area surrounding Wrigley Field would be crowded because the ballpark had been used for a concert that evening. XXXXXXX further noted that many individuals would be in the surrounding bars having watched the Chicago Cubs play baseball on television. During their drive, the UCs described the purported explosive power of the device they were providing HASSOUN. The UCs explained that the bomb was surrounded by ball bearings and that its blast could destroy up to half a city block. As the UCs’ vehicle approached the target area, UC-1 opened the explosive device’s detonation mechanism and told XXXXXXX that he was setting the bomb’s timer for thirty minutes. XXXXXXX told UC-1 that was too much time. UC-1 accordingly set the timer for approximately twenty minutes. UC-2 warned XXXXXXX that he had to be quick. UC-1 then activated the purported bomb’s arming mechanism in XXXXXXX’x presence. The UCs’ vehicle arrived close to the target location at approximately 12:10 a.m. in the early morning of September 19, 2010. As they had previously planned, the UCs parked their vehicle approximately one block southwest of the Xxxxx Street target location. UC-1 then handed HASSOUN the shopping bag containing the backpack, and with it, the alleged explosive device. As planned, XXXXXXX exited the vehicle and walked directly to the target location, where HASSOUN deposited the device in the target trash container. At the time that XXXXXXX dropped the bag containing the purported bomb in the trash container, the sidewalk was crowded with people, many of whom were within 20 feet of the target location.

Factual Basis. 6. Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charges charge contained in Counts One and Count Two of the indictment. In pleading guilty, defendant admits the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubtdoubt and constitute relevant conduct pursuant to Guideline § 1B1.3: On From on or about September 19November 6, 20102015, XXXX and continuing until on or about November 12, 2015, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXattempted to obstruct, attempteddelay, without lawful authorityand affect commerce, to by extortion, in that he obtained United States currency from another person, with that person's consent induced under color of official right, and by the wrongful use a weapon of mass destruction against people and property in a manner that would have affected interstate and foreign commerce fear of economic harm, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2332a(a)(2)(D)1951. More specifically, and attempted to damage and destroyXXXXX was employed by the City of Chicago Department of Buildings as a building inspector. On or about November 6, by means of an explosive2015, real property affecting interstate and foreign commerce XXXXX, in violation of Title 18his capacity as a building inspector, United States Code, Section 844(i). In early June 2010, XXXXXXX told approached a law enforcement cooperating source two-story building in Chicago (hereinafter, “the “CSbuilding”) that he wanted to commit acts was undergoing renovations, including the replacement of violence in Chicago front façade the windows. XXXXX asked the workers at the building if they had a permit for monetary gain and to cause political instability. The CS asked XXXXXXX about his ideas for a terrorist attack. XXXXXXX suggested bombing the commercial area surrounding Wrigley Field as one option. XXXXXXX explained that an attack against an entertainment center like the one near Wrigley Field could “paralyze” Chicago commercerenovations. In response, one of the CS told XXXXXXX that he/she had “friends” who might be willing to pay XXXXXXX to perpetrate such an attack. Over the following weeksworkers called Individual A, the CS part- owner of the company that owned the building, and XXXXXXX continued handed the phone to discuss XXXXXXX’x ideas for perpetrating a terrorist act. XXXXXXX indicated XXXXX so that he wanted could speak directly to meet with the CS’s contacts and was anxious to act against ChicagoIndividual A, who informed XXXXX that they did not have a permit. The CS arranged a meeting between XXXXXXX and an individual the CS represented to be one of his/her purported contacts on July 8In response, 2010. Then unbeknownst to XXXXXXX, the contact was an undercover FBI task force officer (hereinafter “UC-1”). During their initial meeting, XXXXXXX told UC-1 that he had been contemplating how to perpetrate terrorist attacks in Chicago. XXXXXXX XXXXX stated that he believed could put a stop to the renovation work and that a series XXXXX and Individual A needed to talk. XXXXX and Individual A agreed to meet at the building the following Monday (November 9, 2015) and XXXXX told Individual A that, in the meantime, the renovation work on the building could continue. On or about the morning of escalating violent acts could November 9, 2015, XXXXX and Individual A spoke over the phone to confirm their plan to meet later that same day at the building to discuss the permit matter. During this conversation, XXXXX stated words to the effect of, “This being the City of Chicago, this can be used worked out,” by which XXXXX meant to undermine the city’s political establishment. When asked by UC-1 what XXXXXXX was personally willing to do, XXXXXXX indicated imply that he would be willing to facilitate overlook the lack of permit and allow the renovation to continue in exchange for a car bombing cash payment from Individual A. On or about the assassination afternoon of Chicago police officers. XXXXXXX assured UC-1 that he wanted to participate in some violent act. When asked if he was concerned about those who would be hurt by such violenceNovember 9, XXXXXXX stated that casualties were the inevitable result of what he termed “revolution.” XXXXXXX 2015, XXXXX met with UC-1 Individual A at the building in Chicago. Unbeknownst to XXXXX, Individual A had reported their prior communications to the FBI and an individual who UC-1 introduced was equipped with a recording device that recorded the meeting. During the meeting, XXXXX threatened to XXXXXXX as shut down Individual A’s renovation due to the lack of permit, which XXXXX stated would cost Individual A at least $3,500 and delay the renovation for at least six months. XXXXX solicited $300 from Individual A in exchange for XXXXX not reporting the matter to the Department of Buildings and allowing the renovation work to continue without a “good friend” and “brother” on July 21permit. Specifically, 2010. Then unbeknownst to XXXXXXX, UC- 1’s associate was an undercover FBI special agent (hereinafter, “UC-2” and, together with UC-1, the “UCs”). UC-1 XXXXX explained to XXXXXXX that he had told UC-2 about their July 8directed Individual A’s workers to finish the renovation and then stated, 2010 meeting and that UC-2 was interested in hearing XXXXXXX’x ideas concerning the commission of a terrorist act. XXXXXXX then told UC-2 his idea of perpetrating a series of escalating violent attacks designed to damage Chicago“So now, what’s sense of security, its economyhappening now is you’re gonna give me some appreciation, and trust in leadershipyou’re gonna hurry up and get this done. HASSOUN identified Chicago entertainment establishments, civic buildings, commercial high-risesAnd that appreciation is gonna be $300. Now how quickly can you get me my money to keep my mouth shut?” Individual A responded that he/she could get XXXXX the money the next day, and transportation infrastructure as potential targetsXXXXX replied, “Now, I’m doing you a favor You know that. I’m looking out for you; we’re looking out for each other.” Following the November 9, 2015 meeting, XXXXX and Individual A engaged in several phone communications during which they agreed to meet at the building on Thursday, November 12, 2015, for the purpose of Individual A paying XXXXX the agreed upon $300. On or about the afternoon of November 12, 2015, XXXXX and Individual A met at the building for approximately five minutes. Unbeknownst to XXXXX, Individual A was working at the direction of law enforcement and was equipped with a recording device that recorded this meeting. During their July 21, 2010 the meeting, XXXXX asked Individual A to go somewhere private in the UCs gave XXXXXXX a digital camcorder to videotape potential targetsbuilding. XXXXXXX agreed. XXXXXXX traveled to XXXXX then solicited and accepted $300 from Individual A in exchange for XXXXX allowing the commercial area surrounding Wrigley Field and filmed potential targets on August 8, 2010, August 12, 2010 and August 14, 2010. XXXXXXX’x video focused renovation work on the barsbuilding to continue without a permit. XXXXX instructed Individual A, restaurants if ever questioned about the $300, to falsely claim that Individual A purchased a table saw from XXXXX. Following XXXXX and Individual A’s meeting, XXXXX left the building with the $300 cash given to him by Individual X. XXXXX acknowledges that his conduct had the potential security to affect interstate commerce in that the renovation companies owned by Individual A routinely purchased goods from outside of Illinois, including supplies for the renovation project on the building and other properties in the areas he observed. As he filmed, XXXXXXX commented on the potential tactical advantages and risks of perpetrating an attack at the various locations he observed. In particular, XXXXXXX noted the most populated bars and restaurants, and identified visible police presence and street security cameras. During their July 21, 2010 meeting, XXXXXXX told the UCs that he wanted to dedicate himself to the proposed attack and asked the UCs effectively to employ him planning the bombing. The UCs agreed and from July 21, 2010 to September 18, 2010, the UCs paid HASSOUN $2,700. XXXXXXX met with the UCs again on August 16, 2010 to debrief the UCs on his reconnaissance efforts. XXXXXXX provided the UCs the camcorder he had used to record his surveillance. After reviewing the videos, the UCs and XXXXXXX discussed areas that could be targeted to cause maximum casualties with minimal operational difficulty and risk. The UCs and HASSOUN met again on August 31, 2010 to pick a final target location and discuss operational logistics. The UCs and XXXXXXX traveled to the proposed target chosen by XXXXXXX – a trash recepticle located at approximately 0000 Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx in Chicago, Illinois. XXXXXXX told the UCs he would deposit a proposed bomb in the container on a Saturday night when the area would be crowded with bar patrons. The target trash recepticle chosen by XXXXXXX was located approximately five feet from the glass windows of a sports-themed bar that sold alcohol products manufactured throughout the United States and abroad. XXXXXXX told the UCs that he chose the particular location because it presented the opportunity to inflict a greater number of casualties than alternate locations. The UCs and XXXXXXX agreed to execute their planned attack on the night of September 18, 2010. As prearranged, XXXXXXX met with the UCs on the evening of September 18, 2010 at a hotel located in Rosemont, Illinois. There, the UCs provided HASSOUN a backpack that contained what UC-1 revealed as an explosive device. The enclosed device was comprised of a silver, one-gallon paint can, the interior of which was lined with ball- bearings, and which contained seven cylindrical tubes that appeared to be explosive material, and which were bound by black electrical tape, two of which were connected to blasting caps with electrical wire leads attached to a clear plastic box containing a 9 volt battery, blue activation light and a white mechanical timer. The UCs told XXXXXXX the device was a bomb and generally explained how it was constructed, would be armed and detonated. The UCs provided HASSOUN with a grey shopping bag which, they explained, could be used to conceal further the backpack and its enclosed bomb. Prior to September 18, 2010, the UCs had, on a number of different occasions, told XXXXXXX that they did not need his assistance with the execution of the planned attack and that he could withdraw from their plan at any time. During their July 21, 2010 meeting, the UCs questioned XXXXXXX concerning whether he wanted to participate in the actual, planned attack. XXXXXXX assured the UCs that he did. During that meeting, UC-1 told XXXXXXX that he could “walk away” at any time. XXXXXXX responded by stating that he had come to the decision to perpetrate a terrorist act in Chicago on his own. When questioned by the UCs again on August 16, 2010, XXXXXXX again assured the UCs that he wanted a role in the execution of the proposed bombing. The UCs and XXXXXXX left the hotel at approximately 11:37 p.m. on the evening of September 18, 2010, and traveled together in a rented, white van from Rosemont, Illinois to the target area. While in route, the UCs and XXXXXXX discussed how the area surrounding Wrigley Field would be crowded because the ballpark had been used for a concert that evening. XXXXXXX further noted that many individuals would be in the surrounding bars having watched the Chicago Cubs play baseball on television. During their drive, the UCs described the purported explosive power of the device they were providing HASSOUN. The UCs explained that the bomb was surrounded by ball bearings and that its blast could destroy up to half a city block. As the UCs’ vehicle approached the target area, UC-1 opened the explosive device’s detonation mechanism and told XXXXXXX that he was setting the bomb’s timer for thirty minutes. XXXXXXX told UC-1 that was too much time. UC-1 accordingly set the timer for approximately twenty minutes. UC-2 warned XXXXXXX that he had to be quick. UC-1 then activated the purported bomb’s arming mechanism in XXXXXXX’x presence. The UCs’ vehicle arrived close to the target location at approximately 12:10 a.m. in the early morning of September 19, 2010. As they had previously planned, the UCs parked their vehicle approximately one block southwest of the Xxxxx Street target location. UC-1 then handed HASSOUN the shopping bag containing the backpack, and with it, the alleged explosive device. As planned, XXXXXXX exited the vehicle and walked directly to the target location, where HASSOUN deposited the device in the target trash container. At the time that XXXXXXX dropped the bag containing the purported bomb in the trash container, the sidewalk was crowded with people, many of whom were within 20 feet of the target location.