TAMPA — A federal judge refused to dismiss the charges against Tampa’s media consultant Tim Burke. The judges decided that the ju-decides should decide whether they should release a video containing lethargic Fox News footage to determine whether they committed a crime.
US District Judge Kathryn Kimball Misell said in a 35-page order issued Monday that the Great Ju judge recognized Burke’s conduct as a crime and therefore a reason for his potential belief that he was not protected under the First Amendment.
In a complex legal analysis, the judge cited a case law that burdened Burke to prove that the video at the center of the case is generally accessible to the public.
The judge also granted the request Monday to postpone Burke’s trial, which was set for June. At a court hearing last week, his lawyer said it would take more time to sort out the vast amount of computer material seized as evidence of the case. They fixed the size of the material, equivalent to 100 trillion terabytes and 100 trillion data bytes. Many of them consist of long videos.
Mizelle resets its pretrial meeting in late August, with the trial scheduled to begin in early September.
“The judge let me prove that the defendant was innocent,” Burke’s lawyer, Mark Rush, said Monday. “We welcome the opportunity to do that in late August.”
The judge’s ruling follows what she made in November, rejecting Burke’s request from her defense and throwing evidence obtained when investigators searched his home. The defense argued that the government omitted key details when applying for a search warrant, namely Burke’s status as a journalist and the impact of the initial meaning of the search.
Burke, 46, is a nationally recognized media consultant who runs Burke Communications from his Seminole Heights home. He is well known for finding and promoting obscure videos online, and has worked for HBO and ESPN, among other clients, and has worked as a journalist for Daily Beast and Deadspin.
Almost two years ago, FBI agents searched for shares in his wife, Tampa City Council member Lynn Harcoek and Homeburk. The agents seized many of Burke’s home studios, including numerous computers.
The Tampa Bay Times later reported that the search was related to a suspected computer hack in Fox News video. The intercepted video Burke later released online included behind the scenes footage of Tucker Carlson on his impaired show on the network, as well as a clip from an interview with Kanye West, whose rapper makes anti-Semitic comments.
In February 2024, the Great Ju Court indicted Burke with 14 federal charges, including conspiracy. Access a protected computer without permission. Intercept or disclosure of wire, verbal or electronic communications. The indictment alleges that Burke conspired with Marco Gaudino, a Washington man, to use his compromised computer credentials to obtain a protected video stream, and then a published clip.
Spend your days with Hayes
Subscribe to our free Stephenly newsletter
Columnist Stephanie Hayes shares thoughts, feelings and interesting business with you every Monday.
You’re all signed up!
Want more free weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.
Check out all options
Court records and minutes have been revealed that the intercepted video also includes footage of the National Basketball Association game. At least one other unnamed television network has also been referred to as a victim of court records.
Last year, Gaudino pleaded guilty to a single conspiracy charge and agreed to work with prosecutors in their case against Burke. The pair didn’t know each other, and their lawyer said.
Burke’s lawyers allege that the video was published on a streaming platform and accessed using credentials posted online. They argue that he is a journalist and that the case violates his right to free speech.
The judge also denied Burke’s claim that the indictment was insufficient because the language of the charges did not specify that the video was filmed without the owner’s consent.
In Monday’s ruling, Judge Misell ruled that the first terms would protect those who release information that has been illegally intercepted by a third party. He took note of the 2001 Supreme Court decision known as Vopper. She refused to extend the case into Burke’s situation, deducing that Burke was accused of taking part in alleged illegal intercepts.
However, she also criticized the incident itself, stating that there was “reason for doubt” that the Bart Nikki incident coincided with “the original understanding of the initial revision.”
“Demons after that decision, decades after that decision,” writes Miserle.
Elsewhere in the sentence, Judge Misell overthrew Burke’s argument that the charges were insufficient because the large ju judge did not specify that it had obtained the material “without consent” or that it was “not easily accessible.”
“Burke is twice wrong,” the judge wrote.
Citing case law, the judge wrote that it was up to Burke to demonstrate that these exemptions apply to his case. She noted that Burke is promoting his ability to find and publish obscure online videos.
“As a result, many of the exams appear to be dedicated to presenting evidence of how Burke obtained electronic communications,” writes Misell. “Of course, Burke is uniquely equipped to add evidence of how communications were obtained. After that, the judges must determine whether those communications are “easy to access by the public.” ”
