[UPDATED] Jarec Wentworth Indicted On Six New Counts, Now Faces 15 Years In Prison

Posted May 3, 2015 by with 67 comments

jarec wentworth indictedJarec Wentworth (legal name Teofil Brank) was facing one charge and a maximum of two years in prison if found guilty of extorting Republican multimillionaire Donald Burns, but in a last-minute move by the prosecution (the trial is set to begin in one week), the former Sean Cody porn star has just been indicted on six new counts, and he now faces at least 15 years in prison.

Filed late Friday night by the prosecution, here are the six new counts, which are in addition to the original extortion charge (for a total of seven):

18 U.S. Code § 1951 (a) – Interference with commerce by threats or violence (2 counts)
(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 880 – Receiving the proceeds of extortion (2 counts—one for Donald Burns’ Audi and one for the $500,000 that Burns allegedly gave Brank)
A person who receives, possesses, conceals, or disposes of any money or other property which was obtained from the commission of any offense under this chapter that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained, shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1952 (a) – Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to—
(1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or
(2) commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or
(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity

18 U.S. Code § 924 (c) – Penalties
Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—
(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years

That last charge obviously has to do with the gun Brank allegedly brought to the scene of his arrest, adding a mandatory minimum of five years to his sentence, if he’s convicted.

According to Brank’s defense, he’s now facing at least 15 years in prison, and the prosecution’s eleventh-hour indictment is a “vindictive” move that violates Brank’s right to Due Process. Yesterday, they filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the six additional counts:

indict1 indict2

A hearing on whether this dismissal will be granted is scheduled for tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. Later in the week, on Friday, the court will rule on whether the prosecution can present a tweet from Str8UpGayPorn as evidence in the trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 12th.

In addition to the six new counts, the prosecution also filed a motion on Friday “to exclude testimony or evidence regarding rape allegation against victim D.B.” This has to be in relation to Brank’s shocking prison email (obtained exclusively by Str8UpGayPorn), in which he accused Donald Burns of raping him in a San Diego hotel room. The court has unfortunately sealed the document containing this motion.

Update 5/4/15: The hearing on the dismissal of the additional counts has been pushed out to Friday, just four days before the trial is scheduled to begin. But, there was some encouraging news for Teofil Brank during today’s hearing on another motion. The judge has granted the defense’s motion seeking to suppress evidence of that gun found during Brank’s arrest. This means the gun won’t be part of the trial, and it means that the prosecution can’t charge Brank under 18 U.S. Code § 924(c) (the 6th count noted above in the last-minute indictment filed Friday night), which would’ve added five years to his sentence if convicted.

All things considered, it was a good day for Teo!

gun

  • David1983

    Oh shit…

  • Nickolas
    • pangelboy

      I will never not upvote an Oprah gif…

  • RedScarab

    damn….

  • yeah yeah

    3, 2, 1

    • WhimsyCotton

      Something tells me the fun is just about to begin actually.

  • dvlaries

    Gonna be missing him for sure now, and a lot longer than we thought. You don’t have to have worked in porn to know that the mistakes we make in the early summer ripening of manhood are often recklessly fearless. Most of us age safely past it, but some always get caught in the net. This is just sad.

  • WillG

    Hard to see how this doesn’t get the defense at least a substantial delay, if they aren’t successful in getting the new charges dismissed. This seemed to be moving at a ridiculously fast clip toward trial anyway. Arrest on March 4, trial begins on May 12? Never heard of such a speedy trial.

    • McM.

      “Justice” is always fast-tracked for the wealthy. The only time it goes slow is when mechanisms of the court is being used to increase the costs (court/lawyer fees, time off of work, etc.) of pursuing a case.

      • A.C.

        This is not particularly shocking at all considering that the pace of federal court prosecutions do move, on the whole, rather quickly. If there are no motion of significance and the prosecution has all of the evidence it needs to move forward (having exchanged the same with the Defense) then there should be no delay in this case. The defense could certainly motion for more time to prepare, but it appears as though they have not done so in this case. There do not appear to be many witnesses to call in this case and the evidence is relatively slight in volume. I think that we would all be particularly and rightly concerned if the trial did not begin so speedily.

        • WillG

          Thank you for all of your very informative comments.

    • DN1002

      The prosecution threatened to add additional charges if the defendant didn’t waive his right to the speedy trial. He has not waived that right. The added charges is the prosecution’s tactic to delay trial and intimidate the defendant into a plea.

  • Jb83752

    Such a shame, now just a few more days until Cliff Jensens trial.

  • Stanlee

    Good enough. This performer needs a reality check. Now if they can pick up Sebastian Young along the way.

  • sxg
  • Todd

    I guess Jarec’s comeback will be in Daddy porn …….

  • Corax95

    Teo’s reaction to the new charges…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09foW3sK4I

  • Seahawksfan

    A ploy to force a plea? They’re really playing hardball with Teo. Wonder what they’re trying to hide? I thought pretty much everything was known about DB and his shenanigans. I’m not defending Teo by any means but this is overkill it seems to me for a non violent crime.

    • andrew

      My thoughts exactly.

    • TK

      Wait, why in the world would Don want a plea deal? Teo should be hoping for a plea deal. The courts have already concealed Don’s name (even though it’s on blog, it’s not like it was on the nightly news).

      • Seahawksfan

        You do realize the longer the case is around and the more information that the defense is able to get out there, the more embarassing it is for Don. The LA Times and at least one TV station has already carried the story and that’s just the beginning. If we start getting stories about male prostitutes being flown all over the country by this Republican and the salacious stories about Don’s sex life get out, I guarantee the major press will pick it up. They are not constrained by any court order and can use Don’s name without constraint. I doubt that Mr. Burns and his Republican cronies want to be the butt (pardon the pun) of Democratic pundits. Plea deal? I think so. Upping the charges against a relatively minor character like Teo is always a sign of desperation for a plea. We’re not talking some mobster or narco-gangster here. It’s called piling on the charges and always has a purpose. It’s called “we want a plea deal because we really want it to go away”.

        • Estelle

          The story has appeared in multiple mainstream outlets so that ship has sailed and the information is out there. Only tinfoil would benefit from a plea deal at this point. Burns is already radioactive politically For the next election cycle. Any $$ he donates will be through a anonymous PAC. No political candidate will be photographed with him in a 500 mile radius.

          • Seahawksfan

            What attention it has received is just from the charges. You’re right that Burns is radioactive. But with the details yet to come out I can see this one being milked heavily. I’m not sure what you meant by the obscure reference to tinfoil but the very possibility of other names being drawn into this as collateral damage for the prudish and often closeted Republicans is enough for them to want it to go away. Otherwise why try to intimidate a such a small fish by piling on the charges most of which a good lawyer could easily make go away.

          • Estelle

            Put Donald burns in a search engine and His connection to porn and tinfoil are the first thing that comes up and will be that way indefinitely. It’s not going away and is past the point of being settled quietly. Unless another closeted republican was extorted then I don’t see where other names would be drawn in, unless another tick goes public with a different politician/donor. For all we know burns could be supportive of the additional charges and wants shithworth to pay. He will still have his millions, but his reputation is shot, and any political pull he once had has been dimmed if not shut down, that’s a hard pill to swallow.

          • Seahawksfan

            As always only time will tell. I still think there is a lot that someone doesn’t want to come out.

  • Ayda
    • sxg

      It’s almost worth going to prison just to have him in my ass!

      • Ayda

        hahaha I probably go for it too but I have the problem that there aren’t mixed prisons. Christopher Meloni’s ass is gold.

        • sxg

          Most major cities won’t have mixed prisons. I know here in Houston they don’t. And same thing for LA. It’s a tough decision to make: Do you go ahead and have the prison book you with the rest of the gays, and end up being surrounded by mostly queens, or do you pretend to be heterosexual so you get the chance to meet your Chris Keller?

          • Ayda

            I just look for some information and here in Spain we have mixed prisons but woman and man don’t end be together anyway. Even being Bi (myself) I go for Chris Keller without a doubt haha

          • sxg

            Oh you mean gender mixed! I thought you meant sexual orientation mixed. Yea here in the US I don’t believe we have mixed gender prisons, and for good reason. They even keep the gay/bi/transgender separate from the rest of the males for their safety.

            Didn’t know you were a girl. And ooh if there was ever a prison I’d want to be in, I would definitely not mind being in a Spanish prison, especially one near Madrid or Barcelona. Spanish men are hot!

          • Ayda

            Oh probably I didn’t explain very good ( English is my third language so I make mistakes) but yeah I was talking about gender mixed.

            Yeah I’m a girl actually Ayda is my real name. Nooo the best place in Spain is Galicia, the best seafood in the world and well all the kinds of food, I’m not saying this only because I’m Galician I mean it. And we have three prisions by the way hahaha

  • Tony161956

    It does sound like overkill on the prosecutor’s part BUT it could be part of the plea bargain negotiating process. The prosecution is seemingly making it clear to Teo that he doesn’t have much bargaining power. I’m curious though why they’re trying to “exclude testimony or evidence regarding rape allegation against victim D.B.” This move makes it sound like there’s somethinghere.

    • A.C.

      The prosecutor in this case is following a standard play that we are all taught to employ from the first day we begin working – charge the Defendant with every possible charge you know that you can prove. The reason for that strategy is clear, you may lose on the sole charge that you raise, but having multiple charges increases your chance for conviction.

      As for the allegation of rape, the prosecution is attempting to exclude this information because of issues of relevance. The rape allegation is not at all pertinent to the extortion case. That is not to say that rape did not occur, but that occurrence is not germane to the issues to be adjudged. Evidence, or allegations of this type may be excluded if it is irrelevant, would prove waste of the court’s time and or judicial resources, and or confuses the issues at hand such that a trier of fact might make an improper conclusion concerning the Defendant’s guilt. The only reason why the Defense might want to include such an allegation is because it would likely cast the victim in a negative light and thus unfairly undermine his credibility. Put another way, let us presume arguendo that the victim did indeed rape the Defendant, what does that have to do with his alleged extortion of the victim? Nothing, frankly. As there is no causal connection between the alleged rape and the alleged extortion it should be excluded as irrelevant.

      • GuyN90068

        As far as I know the rape allegation only appeared in an e-mail sent from Teofil Brank to someone on their approved e-mail list and was then forwarded to this blog. There is nothing in the published court records, though there are quite a few under seal, about the defendant alleging rape by the extortion victim.

        I may drop by the court tomorrow morning to hear how the motions play out.

        • DN1002

          The only motion set for hearing today (5/4), and heard today, was a defense motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search. The motion was granted.

          The govt has filed a motion under seal to exclude testimony or evidence regarding a rape allegation against Burns.

  • HunkCandy.com

    http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs1/4065019_o.gif

    also why isn’t Don Burns being charged with soliciting prostitution?

    • HunkCandy.com

      I guess the “clean hands” doctrine doesn’t apply to this case because Don is rich

      • A.C.

        The doctrine of unclean hands would not be applicable in this case as this is a criminal matter and this doctrine is an affirmative defense used when a person files a complaint or petitions the court for civil redress of some type. Prosecutors often prosecute defendants who were themselves victims of their victims – if that makes sense. Remember though, when the prosecution brings a charge they are not doing so on behalf of the victim of the crime, they are bringing the charge on behalf of the people of that jurisdiction who are theoretically aggrieved and offended by the breaking of the law at issue – hence the caption on the complaint – the People of_____ vs. _____. In that regard, if the unclean hands doctrine did apply to criminal matters (and it does not) the case against the defendant would be dismissed if and only if the whole of the public within that jurisdiction had committed a crime worthy of in essence nullifying the charge against the Defendant. The victim’s crime(s) would be irrelevant. You can see from that explanation of the doctrine of unclean hands why it is not applicable in this case and has nothing to do with the victims wealth.

    • A.C.

      In two words – prosecutorial discretion. The solicitation of prostitution in instances like the ones being described in this case are really state level matters. Yes, I know that there will be those that maintain that it was conducted across state lines and therefore violates federal statute, but Federal prosecutors have to weigh the cost of bringing litigation of this type to court versus the possibility of conviction. Beyond that, even if they were to gain a conviction the question then becomes whether it is worth the prosecution if all that the first time offender would receive would likely be a fine, or at worse, a relatively short probation period with the ability to expunge the matter from his record upon satisfactory completion of that probation. If I were the prosecutor I would not attempt to charge the victim because solicitation of prostitution simply does not rise to the level of the type of offense that would warrant that sort of prosecution unless it formed the predicate to a larger crime that the Federal prosecutor would really be interested in prosecuting. I believe that the victim, having been exposed publicly, will find the pain of that exposure to be far worse than a prosecution that will likely end in a plea deal wherein he pays a paltry fine at most. Are his action wrong? Yes. Are they worth of indictment? Likely not. It is also likely that the prosecution is not choosing to charge him now but instead will do so at the end of the Defendant’s trial when his conviction could not be used effectively in the Defendant’s case.

  • TK

    If one of the legal gals here could answer this I’d appreciate it:

    “18 U.S. Code § 1952 (a) – Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to—
    (1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or
    (2) commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or
    (3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity”

    Are they referring to the fact that he traveled from CA to FL to get the bribe? Or are they saying that he flew from CA to FL to sell his ass? Because if it’s #2, is the Don also guilty of that? I mean, he flew in the guys as party favors.

    Let your str8upgayporn law degree shine!

    http://31.media.tumblr.com/94d9b6043c7f28dfb8aea800b9021835/tumblr_inline_mzz7vw1BcU1rnoasn.gif

    • WillG

      It has to be #1, since he’s not being charged with prostitution. From the Google:

      “Examples of racketeering activity include extortion, money laundering, loan sharking, obstruction of justice and bribery.”

    • n24rc

      He has(had) bank accounts in other countries. He distributed his extortion proceeds to accounts overseas.

      • DN1002

        clueless

        • n24rc

          Are we still having a conversation? @DN1002:disqus cause I seem to recall to telling you to fuck off!!

          if DISQUS came with an ignore button.

    • A.C.

      The Defendant attempted to use the “mail”, in this case, his e-mail, to facilitate his alleged extortion of the victim. He sent the victim private communications indicating what he would do if the victim did not comply with his demands. Remember that the Defendant could still be convicted of the crime if the action was inchoate – meaning that it was not completed.The mere attempt to extort money or gifts from the victim using telecommunications satisfies the requirements under this statute. The term “facility in interstate or foreign commerce” has been interpreted by most Federal courts to include anything
      that crosses state or national borders, including telecommunications. Again, whether that crime was completed is immaterial to the charge. I am not aware of all of the sordid details surrounding this case, but, from what I can gather, the Defendant used various forms of telecommunications – email, text messages, etc. – to further and conclude his criminal activity. That activity would be a definite violation of this act.

    • DN1002

      The operative words are “or uses … any facility in interstate … commerce.” The “facility” in this case is a cell phone.

      and

      “(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity.”

      The charge has nothing to do with travel.

  • John

    I still think Don’s rape allegation should be taken into account but I’m sure it won’t. Even sex workers have rights too, and forced bottoming is a violation of their body. I think there is a lot of dirt here that will never see the light because Don is a billionaire.

    • A.C.

      The prosecution is attempting to exclude this information because of issues of relevance. The rape allegation is not at all pertinent to the extortion case. That is not to say that rape did not occur, but that occurrence is not germane to the issues to be adjudged. Evidence, or allegations of this type may be excluded if it is irrelevant, would prove waste of the court’s time and or judicial resources, and or confuses the issues at hand such that a trier of fact might make an improper conclusion concerning the Defendant’s guilt. The only reason why the Defense might want to include such an allegation is because it would likely cast the victim in a negative light and thus unfairly undermine his credibility. Put another way, let us presume arguendo that the victim did indeed rape the Defendant, what does that have to do with his alleged extortion of the victim? Nothing, frankly. As there is no causal connection between the alleged rape and the alleged extortion it should be excluded as irrelevant.

      • John

        Thanks for a detailed response. Makes sense.

  • Matt

    Okay, now I’m gonna go and kill someone and be his prison bitch.

  • Alan Keddie

    Another one bites the dust? Would Sean Cody still take him back? Or men.com? Or duckface entertainment.

  • Pingback: Breaking News: Jarec Wentworth Faces 15 Years And Is Indicted On Six Counts! | Guy Video Sex()

  • GuyN90068

    The search of the backpack, and the contents (the gun), was excluded in the motion hearing today. There will be another hearing on Friday for the superseding indictment and the above dismissal. The superseding indictment was not yet on the docket and the government didn’t provide a courtesy copy to the court. (Meaning, it was filed but had not yet made it’s way in to the system. Normally a courtesy copy is provided to the court due to the filing delays).

    I have no idea why the defense keeps bringing up the “possible sex with minors”; if true (it’s not) it would be a separate case filed against the victim. The government has until Wednesday to verify ages of all the people Teofil referred to the victim and submit it to the court. All this will be under seal so you’ll never get verification of who they are.

    • DN1002

      The superseding indictment is exhibit B in the defense motion to dismiss it. And as a result of the grant of defense motion heard today, count 7 of the superseding indictment is not prosecutable.

      And you were right about the permanent visa status. My apologies. I made an incorrect assumption.

      I know who the referrals were, but none of them were minors. The minors alluded to were not among the referrals. You’d be astonished to learn the relationship between the defendant and one of the minors the “victim” expressed an interest in.

      • n24rc

        ” I made an incorrect assumption.” – Seems to be happening here a lot lately?

  • Dazzer

    I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating.

    The people here explaining the niceties and concepts of the legal case are fantastic (and the people who are just being funny are pretty bloody good, too).

    I come to this blog to see the odd (sometimes very odd) penis and gifs of men fucking, and I am getting a legal education that other people are paying hundreds for on on-line courses.

    All the ‘experts’ in law here (I’m using the ” because I don’t know your legal qualifications) should consider getting together and offering an on-line qualification of ‘Learn Law Through Gay Porn’.

    All of you are excellent communicators and I’m grateful for you taking the time to explain the case to morons like me.

  • DN1002

    Zach,

    The hearing on the defense motion to dismiss the superseding indictment is not scheduled for Monday (5/4/15). It was merely proposed by defense counsel that the motion be heard Monday.

    A completely different defense motion had previously been scheduled to be heard Monday; that motion was heard today and granted. I’ll let you figure out what that motion was so you can publish another “exclusive.”

    • Zachary Sire

      Everyone already knew about the motion to suppress the gun, as I previously mentioned it last week.

      Most of your comments here indicate to me that you’re very bitter—about me breaking this exclusive story back in March; about me continuing to provide updates for my readers; and in response to other commenters who are merely sharing their thoughts/opinions.

      I suggest you take your attitude and start your own blog if you’re so invested in this story and fancy yourself such an insider. Good luck.

      • Pascal

        I’m not sure which is the truest statement here: DN1002 being bitter or Zachary being unable to stand being corrected.

        (But the remark about the [UPDATE] was uncalled for – even if funny)

  • kevin

    “teofil behind bars” could be a classic of the adult cinema. the thought of him in jail makes me so hard!

  • Chris

    Waiting for the list of “referred” fellow SC models to come out. Be interesting to see whom else was a Burns Boy

    • GuyN90068

      The list will never be made public.