Brad Shuttleworth is a terrible lawyer and human being. Here he claims with the help of an Op, Fish, that it is legal to threaten to expose someone publicly over alleged child pornography, while not reporting that allegation to the proper authorities.
Both Federal and State mandatory reporting laws exist for generalized child abuse, with certain adults required to report suspected abuse within a given time. At least fifteen states do require that of all adults, so perhaps I am overgeneralizing on that particularly point, having worked in states like Texas where this is mandated for all. Incidentally, Barrett also hailed from Texas before his conviction, incarceration and release.
The issue is that this isn’t just generalized child abuse Barrett appears to be threatening, or possibly blackmailing his target over. Its child pornography, an elevated form of abuse that falls under sexual crimes. Blackmailing people, even if the target has done something illegal, is a crime itself. With Barrett already having legal troubles due to threatening UK police via a banner during a recent protest and his past conviction for threatening an FBI agent, this latest episode is not a good look.
Let’s go back to Matt Gaetz, the corrupt Congressman who is under Federal investigation for many of the same crimes his buddy Joel Greenberg pled guilty to. One of those crimes was child sex trafficking, alleged to be the same child. When the story first broke, Gaetz was able to pivot due to his father being blackmailed over the knowledge of the investigation and threat to leak that to the press.
Here is part of that pivot, projecting the focus of the legitimate investigation into Gaetz’s potential criminal issues onto a secondary crime.
Both are possible crimes if proven resulting in convictions. The blackmailer has pled guilty while Matt’s wingman Joel Greenberg still hasn’t been sentenced indicating he is turning over valuable prosecutable information to the Feds for not only the eight counts he pled guilty to, but every crime he has knowledge or has participated in. Matt won’t likely be indicted until after Greenberg is sentenced, and given the lengthiness of cooperation, I get this impression Matt and other close associates of Joel will be facing more difficult legal challenges than just child sex trafficking.
Back to Barrett Brown.
Things don’t look good for Barrett should a lawsuit be filed. As Fish points out here, Barrett in the UK should have reported those concerns though isn’t legally required to do so.
Instead Barrett sent another seemingly threatening note to the lawyer of his target, something no lawyer would advise their client to do on their own. It was impulsive, legally problematic as that one will be included in the paperwork, and doesn’t help him get nearer to his goal.
From my own experiences communicating with other people’s or orgs lawyers myself, one needs to think clearly, take their time, and rethink everything before sending. It’s also helpful having read the applicable statutes and have a full understanding of the potential case one is working on. Lastly, keep gloating to a bare minimum. That is a bit of hubris that weakens any point one might attempt.
I’d also recommend Barrett not end such a letter with “fuck you”. I would have hoped they taught professional correspondence in journalism school, but apparently not as Barrett, Desiree Kane & David Gilbert can’t communicate for shite.