A case that was recently unsealed is that of Ryan Gregory Bracken. Mr. Bracken has been charged with cyberstalking under federal law. The case, which unfolded in early April 2024 in the District of Utah, centers on a series of harassing and threatening phone calls made by Bracken.
The Allegations Against Ryan Gregory Bracken
Timeline and Nature of Threats:
• Late March 2024: Bracken began making numerous threatening phone calls.
• April 1, 2024: Bracken left a voicemail at the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office for an employee identified as W.K. The voicemail was described as aggressive and included threats of death, with Bracken accusing the staff of treason—a crime he claimed warranted capital punishment.
• April 2, 2024: Bracken made multiple calls to the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office. He expressed frustration over an impending property foreclosure, threatening to use violence, including “open fire” and “spit hot lead,” if attempts were made to evict him. He also directly threatened the elected Sheriff, claiming she would “swing from a rope” for her “treasonous acts.”
The Investigation
The investigation into Bracken’s actions was conducted by a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agent. The agent’s background includes extensive experience in law enforcement and investigations into various offenses, including fraud and drug trafficking. The meticulous gathering of evidence, including recordings of the threatening calls and Bracken’s explicit identification in those calls, played a crucial role in building the case.
Evidence Collected:
• Voicemails and Call Logs: Detailed recordings and logs of Bracken’s calls were analyzed, providing clear evidence of his threats.
• Witness Testimony: Statements from the victims, including employees of the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office, corroborated the threatening nature of the calls.
Recent Developments
Motion for Habeas Corpus Writ of Quo Warranto (a sovereign citizen filing)
The Defendant’s motion invoked the writ of quo warranto, typically used to challenge the authority under which a public office is held or a corporation’s right to operate. However, the Court noted that the Defendant’s arguments, influenced by sovereign citizen ideologies, were irrelevant and legally unfounded. The Court dismissed these claims as frivolous and without merit.
The Defendant has been allowed to represent himself. However, the Court cautioned that any obstructive behavior or refusal to comply with court orders could lead to termination of his right to self-representation. The Court highlighted the importance of following procedures and cooperating during the legal process.
All defendants are innocent until proven guilty.