He linked to a cache of 5 million documents, some of which had CC information in them. Boom, identity theft. All of the other charges flow from that.
If the court is not careful we are setting ourselves up for a future where sensitive information is sprinkled in a trove of documents as a trap for unsuspecting journalists or other parties that want to make that information available for the public good.
But the 'threats' stemmed from the FBI wrecking his Mom's house looking for his laptop and threatening her with obstruction when it wasn't found.
The threats were stupid but most were of the vein "How would you like it if someone went after your family?" And none of the threats were really credible.
Those weren't just threats, regardless of their credibility. They charged and convicted her with obstructing a search warrant for "hiding a laptop." She plead guilty and is facing a maximum penalty of $100,000 dollars in fines and 12 months in prison. $100,000 dollars, and 12 months in prison.
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND TWELVE MONTHS IN PRISON.
* c. a mandatory term of supervised release of not more than 1 years, which must follow any term of imprisonment. If McCutchin violates the conditions of supervised release, she could be imprisoned for the entire term of supervised release;
* f. costs of incarceration and supervision; and
* g. forfeiture of property
But I'm sure this is all about the videotaped threats he made against agent Smith and his family after months of harassment by federal officials who engaged in similar behaviour. You know, the same agent who was responsible for making the case for the gag order to the judge. This has nothing to do with snuffing out someone who's not only been a major pain in the ass for the military industrial complex for years now, but has been quite ostentatious about it too. Literally nothing.
Don't get me wrong. It is criminal to threaten others like that and he should face punishment for doing so. Of course, he's already been imprisoned for longer than what a reasonable sentence for such a crime would be. But if you watch those three videos in their entirety, you'll see that there is an interesting question behind the haze of giddy panic that bubbles just below the surface of his outward frustrations and ramblings.
Sorry, I was ambiguous in my comment. I meant that Barrett's threats were not credible -- they were said in a (somewhat childish and very stupid) fit of anger and fear. I agree with you 100%.
Actually, if I recall correctly, he explicitly said that he was not making bodily threats, merely that he would do what he could to destroy the reputation of the agent that he had an issue with.
The video speaks for itself. Unless it doesn't (my memory is far from perfect）
He did later explicitly state that they weren't bodily threats. Though really, I'm sure it's the "I'm going to look into his kids" bit that's the real motivation for the charge.
I don't get it. All the coverage I've been seeing about Brown suggests he's been indicted somehow for identity theft. There's nothing about identity theft in here. Is there a second indictment I'm not seeing?
He was being investigated for identity theft. The FBI searched his Mother's home and threatened her with obstruction when they didn't find what they were looking for. Then he made his 'threats' and that's what he was initially arrested for. Being stupid and making vague threats because the FBI seemed to be targeting those close to him.
That one relates to concealment of evidence, and corruptly concealing evidence, in relation to the hiding of laptops at some point either before or during the execution of a search warrant.
There's a line between saying things and posting multiple youtube videos threatening to ruin someone's life and "look in" to their kids. That's a threat.
Agreed on the kids part, he probably should face charges for posting threats, but I do have to laugh about him 'threatening to ruin someone's life', considering that people who end up under the microscope of the federal government for posting links rarely have their life improved.
All in all, he is not the most sympathetic of figures, but it doesn't mean the government gets a free pass.
I'm confused. Someone who makes an ACTUAL credible threat against someone typically just goes in a police file. Someone who makes a threat - not even to slander, but to investigate and expose - is committing a crime?
If I say, "Jim is a dirtbag, I'm going to expose him and his whole dirty family," what have I done? It sounds like I'm just an investigative journalist with delusions of being good at my job and who probably has a personal grievance with Jim.
I happen to not be a fan of the individual in this case, but it's important to be realistic about the whole business of threats against reputation.
I was hoping to see your thoughts on this case, and I will keep reading the thread in case you have additional comments, but related to the 1st Amendment issue, what does it matter what the charges are?
Whether the charge is distribution of stolen information or threatening a federal authority, does the Defendant have the right to defend himself publicly in the media? For example George Zimmerman did Fox News interviews prior to trial (and did not have to testify as a result). Obviously this can be distinguished from the Martha Stewart case where she used media to maintain her innocence for the insider trading charges and she was subsequently charged with artificially maintaining the price of her own Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.(MSLO) stock vis-a-vis here "innocence media campaign", although the commercial speech standard was applied in this instance. Thoughts?
He linked to a cache of 5 million documents, some of which had CC information in them. Boom, identity theft. All of the other charges flow from that.
If the court is not careful we are setting ourselves up for a future where sensitive information is sprinkled in a trove of documents as a trap for unsuspecting journalists or other parties that want to make that information available for the public good.