The other day, Twitchy’s own Sam J. talked about a new low in the constant attacks on Sound of Freedom. In that article, she discussed how numerous outlets claimed a funder of the movie named Fabian Marta was arrested for kidnapping.
Well, dear reader, I am going to break some news. I spoke on background to someone close to the defense and I am now convinced he is innocent. And I will lay out why I believe this, below.
So let me start with something basic: The charges.
The charge is not kidnapping. The charge is accessory to kidnapping. It’s right there in the database for Missouri’s court system. For instance, this guy didn't understand the charges, either, but he correctly screencapped the charges and linked to the correct page in the database:
Cope and seethe lmfaohttps://t.co/qDCTlgHmMq pic.twitter.com/F7zpG1j052
— Barbizon Baddie (@DeddahGratin) August 9, 2023
So, the charge is not child kidnapping, but accessory to child kidnapping. And I don’t believe he is guilty of that, either. I took some time and tracked down a copy of the Probable Cause Statement:
Recommended
Fabian Marta is the Treasurer of the Rockwood School Board PAC. He was co-host of the controversial Jessica Laurent Show with current Rockwood Board Member, Jessica Clark.
— Anuda Wunuda (@wunuda) August 8, 2023
STLPD’s probable cause statement for Fabian Marta’s arrest of Acry-Child Kidnapping: pic.twitter.com/ugwD5vT1Dk
‘@wanuda’ really seems to have it in for Marta, but the person I spoke to on background verified that was a true and correct copy of the relevant part of the Probable Cause Statement and that is what I am focusing on. Here's a larger copy of it:
‘SUSPECT 1’ is the alleged kidnapper that Marta allegedly was an accessory to.
And just on the face of it, Marta is innocent.
Why? You see, he is charged under Missouri’s accessory statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.041) with essentially helping a kidnapping under § 565.115. That second statute says in relevant part that
1. A person commits the offense of child kidnapping if he or she is not a relative of the child within the third degree and, knowing he or she has no right to do so, removes a child under the age of fourteen without consent of the child's parents or guardian, or confines such child for a substantial period of time without such consent.
2. In determining whether the child was removed or confined unlawfully, it is an affirmative defense that the person reasonably believed that the person's actions were necessary to preserve the child from danger to his or her welfare.
Anyone starting to see the problem, here? The Probable Cause Statement says that the children taken were Suspect 1’s daughters, and the kidnapping statute only applies ‘if he or she is not a relative of the child within the third degree.’ So, if every word of the statement is true, Suspect 1 was a relative of the 'victims' to the first degree. That means Suspect 1 is innocent of that charge, and since you can’t be an accessory to a crime that didn’t occur and wasn't even attempted, Marta is innocent, too.
So, that charge will have to be dismissed as a matter of law. And, yes, I have seen cases where the charges are this fatally, stupidly flawed. I can’t tell you how many times I have defended cases where it turned out that there was literally no evidence to support a key element of the crime. As in, the government had to prove an element of the crime such as intent and didn’t offer a scintilla of evidence to support it, to give one example.
Now, he might be charged with a accessory to a different kidnapping statute but we think he is innocent of any such charges. However, to see why we say that, you need a little more context. As reported by various outlets (and verified by my source), Marta was a landlord and Suspect 1 was staying at one of his properties. So, the ‘refusing to allow police access to the residence’ means he didn’t give them the key.
And guess what? He didn’t have to give them the key. You are not under any obligation to help the police in most cases.
In fact, I see no mention of a warrant.
The other problem is there is not even an allegation of intent. Here’s what Missouri’s accessory statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.041, says in relevant part:
1. A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when: …
(2) Either before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose of promoting the commission of an offense, he or she aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.
It may be the case that the mother didn’t have legal custody and someone else did, but there’s no allegation that he even knew the children were being held illegally, let alone that he wanted to ‘promote’ that conduct.
Thus, I think Marta is absolutely innocent. I think that in their ravenous desire to find something, anything with which to attack the movie, the media latched onto this non-story.
Seriously, the most ridiculous thing about this story is that even when it first broke, there was never any real story, here. If you read the breathless news accounts of his arrest, not a single one of these outlets were saying that he definitely did what he was arrested for. As best as I can tell, they had no idea. Aren’t we all supposed presume innocence? But they are so desperate for a story of guilt-by-association, that they will take a person who has merely been accused of doing something wrong more than two weeks after the movie was released and pretend that this reflects badly on the makers of Sound of Freedom. This line of thinking is just tortured.
And as I noted above, even the story of the arrest was just plain wrong. For instance, Sam’s previous report referred to a Newsweek article that got the charge wrong, saying he was accused of kidnapping instead of being an accessory to one. Really, pretty much every outlet that said he was charged with kidnapping might now be liable for defamation.
Further, an article from Deadline Hollywood, linked by this user…
Finally, some actual reporting on Fabian Marta. He was not an investor in the film, only a donor to its P&A (ie, advertising) campaign. And the kidnapping is part of some custody dispute involving a rental tenant. The details are still murky.https://t.co/PpZpR5hDoD
— Mike Rothschild (no relation) (@rothschildmd) August 5, 2023
… puts things in a little more perspective (although they don’t realize they have the wrong charge):
Now just to be clear, we’re talking one person who contributed an unidentified amount of money to the $5M P&A crowdfunding campaign put together by Angel Studios. …
Note child kidnapping and sex trafficking, the latter subject which Sound of Freedom focuses on (via the story of former Homeland Security agent Tim Ballard, who took rescuing abducted children into his own hands), are two different types of crimes.
I will break in to point out that this is true. According to the Department of Homeland Security, sex trafficking is essentially kidnapping a person for sexual purposes—such as forcing them into sexual slavery. It is kidnapping plus this evil intent. The article goes on:
Angel Studios has no knowledge of the background of its crowdfunders, just like IBM or any other publicly traded company doesn’t have any idea of who their minor shareholders are. The Newsweek article reported that Marta took to Facebook to post their excitement about crowdfunding Sound of Freedom, posts which have since been removed.
Neal Harmon, CEO of Angel Studios, said in a statement today, ‘Angel Studios adhered to the requirements of federal and state laws and regulations in allowing 6,678 people to invest an average of $501 each into the launch of Sound of Freedom. Just as anyone can invest in the stock market, everyone who meets the legal criteria can invest in Angel Studios projects. One of the perks of investing was the ability to be listed in the credits.’
And, of course, more basically, this wasn’t in Marta’s background at the time of the donation. Even if we pretend that he was guilty (and I think he is innocent), the crime was allegedly committed on July 21, 2023. That would be after the movie opened. These movie makers might be Christians, but I wouldn’t assume they have the gift of prophesy.
The other thing to note in all of this is it sure as heck looks like someone literally got a list of all the donors and are attempting to find any dirt on these people that they can. Now why would they do that?
Incidentally, there is one more potential source of information. Mr. Marta is on Twitter and this is what he has been saying:
Jim Stewartson is a demon who is trying to attack the film, ask yourself why?
— Fabian Marta (@FabianMarta) August 9, 2023
As a crowdfunder I was put in credits.
The alleged kidnapping by a mother in a unit of an apartment building I own never happened. Thats right, look it up.
Truth will be known, God wins!
And he also said this:
Pure facts, every point.
— Fabian Marta (@FabianMarta) August 7, 2023
Details of the case are baffling, can't wait for court.
Can't wait for defamation case.
Can't wait for truth to be known, God wins.
When he gets these charges behind him, a lot of outlets might have a very bad day. And I will simply pull up the popcorn.
