Government’s Case Against Alleged Extortionist Jarec Wentworth Hinges On Tweet From Str8UpGayPorn

Posted May 1, 2015 by with 47 comments


It’s looking more and more likely that Jarec Wentworth, a.k.a. Teofil Brank, will be headed to trial, which is set to begin on May 12th. As Str8UpGayPorn exclusively reported last March, the Sean Cody/ gay porn star is facing a felony extortion charge after allegedly threatening to expose damaging and embarrassing sexual information about Republican multimillionaire Donald Burns, whom Brank had an ongoing sexual relationship with for nearly two years.

In the last two weeks, there have been several pre-trial motions filed by both the defense and the prosecution (one from the defense seeks to suppress evidence involving the gun FBI agents found in Brank’s friend’s car), but the motion filed yesterday was of obvious interest to me. According to documents below, prosecutors are planning to introduce a tweet from Str8UpGayPorn as evidence that purportedly proves their case against Brank.

Not surprisingly, Brank’s defense has filed a motion to exclude Str8UpGayPorn’s tweet from evidence. Here is the motion:

tweet1 tweet2 tweet3 tweet4

This is, obviously, amazing/ridiculous on just about every level imaginable. For one, the defense’s argument that there is no way to prove the @JarecWentworth account was actually being run by Teofil Brank is laughable; we all know it was him, and Twitter’s IP and log-in records on the account should easily prove that.

What’s most surprising is that the government hasn’t been able to subpoena Twitter to obtain the original @JarecWentworth tweet, and is instead relying on my RT of that tweet as one of their only pieces of evidence that Brank was extorting Burns?

More from the defense’s motion, which labels me an “unknown third party”:


The defense goes on to explain the difference between an automatic RT and a manual RT (where someone makes a modification to the original tweet, as I did) and includes this footnote at the bottom of the page:


The defense is right about one thing, insofar as my RT of @JarecWentworth back on February 16th was indeed a manual RT and not a “one-click” automatic RT. And the reason I manually RT’d was so that I could add an image to the @JarecWentworth tweet.

I clearly recall that @JarecWentworth tweeted “How many porn stars know a man named Don?” but at the time, the question obviously meant nothing to me. So, I copied and pasted Jarec’s tweet and added a “funny” image to illustrate his question.

Here’s the tweet:

If the defense did truly attempt to locate that tweet, they didn’t try very hard. It’s still on my timeline and easy to find through Twitter’s advanced search function, assuming they didn’t feel like scrolling backwards through two months of dick pic and gifs of gay porn stars ejaculating.

More from the defense’s motion, which at this point is sort of hurting my feelings?


Irrelevant and unreliable? How rude.

As I stated above, the only modification I made to the @JarecWentworth tweet was the addition of the picture, and I’m willing to testify to that in court. If the prosecution is reading this, please get in touch.

And speaking of the prosecution, here is the relevant portion of their argument in defense of presenting my tweet as evidence:

tweet10 tweet11

It’s always been my understanding that all tweets, deleted or not, are being stored and cached, and if the government wants them—especially in this age of mass and unlawful surveillance—they can easily obtain them. Even if Twitter isn’t saving deleted tweets, aren’t they being archived “somewhere”?

Thank goodness for my RT, I guess!

tweet12 tweet13

A hearing on whether or not Str8UpGayPorn’s tweet will be allowed into evidence is scheduled for May 8th.


  • Alan Keddie

    Oh. Dear. Zachary is this you? Was this you? You’re terrible, Zachary.

  • Good luck, Teo.

  • Garland

    AHAHAHAHAH. This is like a hug from baby Jesus wrapped with a big pink and purple polka dotted bow.

  • When I did read the motion and saw the exclamation mark in str8upgayporn! I thought they were being ironic! ahahahah mea culpa

  • sxg
    • zach

      Also me:

      • sxg

        I was gonna use that one, but I decided to go with the sluttier one!

    • CBW

      One simply can’t go wrong with a Serial Mom reference. Does Donald Burns recycle? (he’s a Republican, so probably not, regardless of how much room he has in his kitchen) And will the trial happen before or after Labor Day?

      • disqus_9xayOTnP13

        My parents are Republicans and sort recyclables better than any stinky hippy does. They are also the ones that can afford to put solar panels on the barn roof and send the cattle shit to a methane plant the supply power to the lumber yard. Most Repubs I know are frickin’ cheap.

        • sxg

          They’re a combination of cheap and greedy.

          • disqus_9xayOTnP13

            Greedy is kinda a neo-con thing.

    • GN


  • Todd

    Zach takes the stand ……..
    “No, I don’t ….you bitch.”
    “Fuck you too, you whore.”
    “No, I’m not you motherfucker !”

  • NG212

    I love that you’re willing to testify against Jarec.

    • zach

      I would like the whole truth to come out—not just about Jarec but about Donald Burns, too.

      • NG212

        Oh yeah. The more I’ve learned, the more I’ve realized this was a victimless crime.

        • Estelle

          Well not necessarily. Think about all the poor hookers that lost bookings because they are now scared shitless that a wayward ho is going to spill the tea. Or the porn performers that won’t get a sugar daddy or a “referral fee” because of this.
          The party is going to be over for awhile and Burns will be kryptonite as far GOP fundraising next year.

        • n24rc

          Criminal cases are not about victims! It is about prosecuting on behalf of the state or federal government. Jarec was acting illegally. Don is no saint, but he doesn’t have a say in what the prosecution does with this case as they don’t represent him. They represent civil society.

  • Pearl Clutcher

    LOL @ the government. If they have to resort to using b/s from Twitter and this blog. LOL@ them.

  • cphotee

    Give it a little time and this whole shit show will be the plot in a 5 scene series produced from

  • WillG

    Much ado about a tweet that, as far as I can tell, has zero evidentiary value. But milk this for all the free publicity you can Zach! I’m just sorry you had to get poor, sweet, dead Don Knotts involved in this sordid mess.

    • CBW

      Fuckin’ Don Knotts! (in keeping with the Serial Mom theme.)

      • WillG

        That’s a quote from the movie, right? Weird coincidence.

        • CBW

          Indeed, it was most serendipitous. 😉

    • DN1002

      You’re quite right about the dubious evidentiary value of the tweet.

      But it’s normal in pretrial for both sides to try to exclude anything potentially prejudicial to the jury.

      But tweeting, “How many porn stars know a man named Don? Yes Don,” is hardly evidence of a threat or extortion. The tweet doesn’t even provide enough information to conclusively identify this man named “Don.” Nor does the tweet contain a recognizable threat. No matter who sent the tweet, the tweet doesn’t prove the government’s case.

      Furthermore, even if the tweet originated from the @JarecWentworth account, and even if Jarec Wentworth is the owner of the account, that does not prove that Jarec Wentworth himself sent the tweet. Several months ago, Jarec’s ex-girlfriend hijacked the account and even tweeted Jarec’s real name and mobile phone number in the timeline of the account.

      • WillG

        Of course it doesn’t prove the govt’s case, but I probably overstated it when I said it has zero value. I think it was meant to be a signal to Burns that he was getting ready to post personal info if he didn’t pay up. But with all the text messages that say the same thing, it’s redundant evidence at best and hardly worth the fuss.

        • DN1002

          Yes. The govt’s purpose in introducing the tweet as evidence is to show that victim perceived it as a true threat.

          • n24rc

            Or maybe because Don didn’t have pictures to begin with? You “guess,” or in other words speculate, that he is omitting evidence.

          • DN1002

            I’m not speculating that Burns is “omitting evidence.”

            It’s a fact, not speculation, that Burns told the FBI that he didn’t believe Jarec had any compromising photos or videos of any kind.

            My “guess” about what Burns is afraid was intended as irony, not speculation.

      • sxg

        How come this is the first time I’m hearing about the hijack? And why didn’t any porn blog talk about it? Or at least there should be some screenshots of this!

      • n24rc

        What bunch of stupid bitches! Both of them. IF that is the what happened!!!

        In your argument, you’ve implicated a prior hacking incident was caught. Since, Jarec’s legal name and cell phone were taken down immediately after, we must conclude that it was Jarec who ultimately controlled the account!!! As of today, there are no traces of this hacking incident or his info being posted online through twitter.

        However, if this is some defense, anytime afterwards Jarec must have been sensitive about: a.) his personal info thus knows how important it is to maintain a certain level of privacy, and b.) that his account was managed in a way that “hacking” was a possibility and had to be managed better given that his ex-girlfriend knew intimate details about his life and business.

        In either case, this doesn’t really bode well for him, given that he should have changed his password, and managed his account such that no one could have altered or transmitted sensitive information without his awareness. Not only that, you also have a transcript of text messages between the victim and him, that corroborates his intent to blackmail. The crime isn’t about what happens or results, it is about the intent of actions by the criminal. A loaded gun at the scene doesn’t speak well on his behalf, having someone who is an eyewitness probably looking to avoid charges themselves is a major issue too.

        If hacking was a viable argument the defense would have brought it up. It means this argument isn’t, also it is improbable based on subsequent actions and attitudes demonstrated by Jarec that it even occurred at all.

        Stop being an apologist for this G4P criminal egomaniac!

        • DN1002

          Stop with the “loaded gun” nonsense. Contrary to what has been repeated in various media sources, the gun was NOT loaded. As defense counsel correctly observed, “The gun and ammunition were found separately in the back pack. There is no evidence that the gun or ammunition ever left the backpack or Mr. Yim’s car. There is no evidence that the gun was shown to D.B. or the undercover agent or ever mentioned to either of them.”

          I mentioned the hacking merely to point out that it’s possible for someone other than the owner of a Twitter account to tweet from the account.

          You don’t seem to really understand the purpose of in limine motions. The purpose of the defense’s in limine motion was not to offer a defense to the charge.

          • n24rc

            “Also, gun at the scene doesn’t speak well on his behalf, having someone who is an eyewitness probably looking to avoid charges themselves is a major issue too.” … if you note I don’t say loaded or referred to it’s possession to Jarec!!!!!

            It was brought because Yim had it. It suggests that Yim knew something was up, and was armed. I think that Yim is the definitive nail in the coffin. His testimony is damning. Otherwise, the prosecutors would have indicted him as well in the blackmail charges as an accomplice.

            As to the limine motion, it is apart of the larger defense tactic to stonewall, so yes I consider it a overall defense in this case given that it deals with the issue of digital space. Kind of like trying to establish a murder without a body is incredibly hard. But in this instance, they have the tweets AND the texts to corroborate. As stated, they can establish timeline with the login of tweets too if the defense succeeds in a limine motion.

          • DN1002

            You originally wrote “loaded gun.” I put the words in quotes because I was quoting you.

            According to Yim, Yim brought the gun for Jarec’s protection.

            There is no nail or coffin. Yim wasn’t armed. Jarec wasn’t armed. The only people that were armed were the FBI agents.

            Yim did not participate in making threats or demands via interstate commerce, so there is no evidence to charge him as an “accomplice.”

            I suggest you actually read the court documents and refrain from speculation.

            According to court documents, “The gun and ammunition were found separately in the back pack. There is no evidence that the gun or ammunition ever left the backpack or Mr. Yim’s car. There is no evidence that the gun was shown to D.B. or the undercover agent or ever mentioned to either of them.”

          • n24rc

            You haven’t answered the question, who was another viable option to the issue of hacking? If it wan’t YIM or his EX Girlfriend…who?

            I suggest you should follow your own advice about speculation…that would include hacking.

          • DN1002

            I wasn’t speculating that any particular person hacked the account. As I stated before, I was merely pointing out that it’s possible for a person other than the owner of a Twitter account to tweet from the account.

            The mere fact that I don’t know you does not make you a “random stranger.” I didn’t choose you randomly.

    • disqus_9xayOTnP13

      It’s part of a time line to show that the defendant was getting bolder. We already “know” the the defendant was procuring talent so for the defendant to but a cattle call for even more dirt is easily construed as a threat to the reputation of dear “don”.

      Now the part the grinds my gear is why is being outed as Gay a threat to the reputation of any one that isn’t married to a woman? And he wasn’t realy being outed his circle knew his sexuality. What 4 people below the Mason Dixon line aren’t going to buy a Magic Jack?

  • Seahawksfan

    Whatever is the reality, I just find the image of a bunch of FBI agents rummaging through either a Twitter account or a website called “Str8UpGayPorn” absolutely hilarious! On to trial! Don’t settle for a plea bargain, Teo! I want this mess out in the open for the whole world to see! Nothing healthier than shining a bright light into dark places. By the way, Zach, couldn’t you find a bit more flattering picture of poor Teo?

  • DPS

    This case is more fun than Legally Blonde

  • Estelle

    His attorney has to be begging him to take a plea deal.

    • n24rc

      Absolutely, only this idiot thinks he is an exception to the rule. Jarec KNOWS they can’t put him away. lol. This guy is a total narcissist. He is oblivious to negative actions, he thinks he is entitled to do them based on recourse. He is unlike most civil society, most ethical people in this society understand no illegal behavior is justifiable based on recourse alone. Quite frankly, with some of the responses made by his peers in porn, it must be something innate to their personalities to do porn in the first place.

      Then again, calling out Jarec in this manner warrants calling out Don as well. Two peas in a pod.

  • I agree this is amazing and ridiculous at the same time. I love it. I love Twitter. I love Predator series featuring Jarec.

    “…scrolling backwards through two months of dick pic and gifs of gay porn stars ejaculating.” LMAO

  • robirob

    Zach, if you have to testify, keep it classy, will you?

    • n24rc

      Christ. Now i’m invested after this silly prolonged cliffhanger. I want to know what happens.

  • Dazzer

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I’m learning so much about American law just by reading the comments here.

    And I’m in the UK, where ‘experts’ went into the minutae of American law in the OJ Simpson trial. And I’ve followed the marriage equality cases in the US courts in detail.

    But the comments posted here are brilliantly succinct and clear. And many of them are bloody funny, too.

    What I don’t understand, though, is why no-one from the defence or prosecution hasn’t just Googled and taken a statement from the estimable Mr Sire?

    • n24rc

      Well, considering the multiple ways Zach has been vocal about Don and Jarec – I think concerns of prejudicial testimony, by both defense and the prosecution attorneys, wouldn’t present Zach as a viable option.