Skip to main content

Florida Man Indicted by Federal Grand Jury for Sextortion and Cyberstalking

PENSACOLA, FL—B Christopher P. Gunn, 31, previously of Walton County, Florida, was indicted today on multiple charges involving the online sextortion and cyberstalking of young girls ranging in age from 13 to 17 years old. The indictment was announced by Pamela C. Marsh, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida.

The federal indictment alleges that Gunn, who was recently arrested on related charges in Alabama, extorted images and videos of minor females in “various states of undress, naked, and engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” The indictment also charges that Gunn violated federal cyberstalking statutes by engaging these females online with the “intent to injure, harass, and cause substantial emotional distress.” The conduct with which Gunn is charged in the Northern District of Florida is alleged to have occurred between October 2009 and March 2011. In total, the indictment alleges that Gunn victimized 11 minor females who resided in various states throughout the nation.

Gunn is currently in custody in Montgomery, Alabama on a federal indictment that also charges him with the production and possession of child pornography. If convicted on all charges in the Florida indictment, Gunn faces over 50 years in federal prison.

This case is being brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit http://www.justice.gov/psc/.

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Walton County Sheriff’s Office. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney David L. Goldberg. An indictment is merely a formal charge by a grand jury that a defendant has committed a violation of federal criminal law. All defendants are presumed innocent unless and until the government proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a jury at trial.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...