DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Superseding indictment filed in Justin Shafer case

Posted on December 7, 2017 by Dissent

As anticipated, federal prosecutors have filed a superseding indictment in their case against dental integrator and vulnerability researcher Justin Shafer. For those in a rush, the TL;DR version is that they have basically transformed a bullshit two-count indictment into a bullshit three-count indictment.

[For the benefit of law enforcement in Texas, that preceding sentence is considered opinion and protected speech, as much as you may dislike it.]

The superseding indictment adds one more count of stalking to the previously filed two counts:

From on or about November 2016, the exact date being unknown, until on or about February, 2017, in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere, the defendant, Justin Mark Shafer, with the intent to harass and intimidate a person and more than one person, used and attempted to use, interactive computer services, electronic communications systems of interstate commerce; internet websites, telephone and other facilities of interstate or foreign commerce, to engage in a course of conduct that caused and attempted to cause and was reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to JC and MK.

In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) & 2261(b).

Based on available information, “JC” appears to refer to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton, while “MK” likely refers to his judicial assistant, Margarita Koye.

So when you have a weak case where someone engaged in protected speech, just double down – throw more protected speech into the mix and claim that that protected speech was also an attempt to cause distress, right? Surely the more people who are upset by your speech, the more “victims” there are of “stalking,” right?

If I’m upset with you for months and email you for months, multiple times, to convey my distress and disgust with your behavior because your behavior is ongoing and continues to trouble me, isn’t that (still) protected speech?  I am not aware of any clause in the First Amendment that would suggest that speech is only protected if you say it less than X times.

So what, exactly, is Shafer alleged to have done that crossed the line from protected speech to “stalking” court personnel? And are we now going to rewrite the Constitution so that any time someone sends an angry or upset communication, we claim that they are attempting to cause distress and could reasonably expect to cause distress and are therefore stalking?  Has this country become a bunch of snowflakes?

Shafer’s attorney, Tor Ekeland, was not available for comment by the time of publication.

Related posts:

  • Is a vendetta by the FBI keeping an innocent man in jail, or has DOJ just lost its mind altogether?
  • Court dates set in Justin Shafer case
  • Prosecution drops five felony charges against Justin Shafer, accepts plea to one misdemeanor charge
  • Security researcher released; had been jailed 8 months while awaiting trial on charges of cyberstalking an FBI agent
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← MN: Mahtomedi Middle School student breaches district data
Sg: oBike reviewing app security after international user data lea →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Disgruntled IT Worker Jailed for Cyber Attack, Huddersfield
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.