MovieChat Forums > Sound of Freedom (2023) Discussion > Angel Studios Responds To Pic Crowdfunde...

Angel Studios Responds To Pic Crowdfunder’s Arrest On Child Kidnapping; Accused’s Attorney Says Charges “Unfounded”

posted a year ago by Satan2016 (25577)
46 replies | jump to latest

https://deadline.com/2023/08/sound-of-freedom-child-kidnapping-charge-angel-studios-response-1235455255/

There was a lot of noise surrounding the red state-beloved, $163M-grossing summer surprise hit, Sound of Freedom, this morning with Newsweek reporting that one of the pic’s 6,678 crowdfunders was arrested for child kidnapping by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police.

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. The person charged, 51-year-old Fabian Marta of Chesterfield, Missouri on July 23, was not a financier of the actual feature production. Deadline confirmed the arrest with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police per Case # 2322-CR01608.

Deadline reached out to the attorney of Marta, Scott Rosenblum of Rosenblum, Schwartz & Fry, in St. Louis who calls the criminal charges against his client “unfounded.”

“I don’t understand how they’re charging him with this,” Rosenblum told Deadline, “He has nothing to do with kidnapping anyone.”

Marta is a landlord to a woman who was involved in a custody dispute with her aunt. Marta was allegedly providing living arrangements to said woman and her child, the former who is involved in rehabbing the rental property.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

It’s pretty interesting that all of a sudden to the left child trafficking isn’t a “Q Anon conspiracy theory”. Even if all of these allegations are true it still wouldn’t detract from the films message. The left is playing politics with child abuse, it’s disturbing

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

What does the "left" have to do with anyone being arrested for kidnapping?

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

The left were the ones who flipped out over a film exposing the horrors of kidnapping. They were the ones who chose to politicize this issue and this film. That’s why.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

I've yet to see anyone really flipping out about this film. I've read a few bad reviews, but people were not losing their minds over the film. The worst I've seen is people whining about how some people don't like the film for whatever reason.

I still don't see what the "left" has to do with the arrest of Fabian Marta.

https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-creator-addresses-funder-fabian-marta-kidnapping-arrest-1817679

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

The arrest of Fabian Marta has absolutely nothing to do with the film. Again you people are trying to slander the film because of the actions/political views of the people behind it. None of that has anything to do with the quality or the message of the film. I may despise Roman Polanski and Kevin Spacey yet Rosemary’s Baby and Se7en are still 2 of my favorite films ever. The difference is I’m a lot more mature and adult than you are.

Also we still don’t know all the facts, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was nothing more than a far left smear job. We all know that the left is willing to use the justice system to advance their lies and false narratives.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

I agree it has nothing to do with the film at all. Just because a single person associated with funding the film was arrested does not affect the film at all.

Exactly who do you mean by "you people"?

Why can't you answer a question? What does "the left" have to do with the arrest of Fabian Marta? Do you think the Democrat mayor ordered his arrest because he was one of the thousands of people funding the film, or perhaps a complaint was sworn out against him and the police did their job?

https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=2322-CR01608&inputVO.courtId=CT22#docket According to the above link, Marta is to be released on person recognizance.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

I think you know what I mean by “you people”. And I already answered your question.

Also learn how to read, I never said that the Democrat mayor ordered his arrest because he was one of thousands of people funding the film. I said it wouldn’t surprise me if he chose to follow up on the arrest because he was funding the film and we also don’t know all the facts yet. It certainly wouldn’t have been front page news had he been one of the far left funders of the racial pornography documentary Everything is going to be all white.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

I think you are refusing to answer a simple question because you lack the backbone to do it. It does not matter if I know what it means or not. I want to know what you mean. Don't be a coward.

I did not say you said "that the Democrat mayor ordered his arrest because he was one of thousands of people funding the film". I asked if you thought it happened. Don't cast yourself as the victim in this conversation.

Child kidnappers make the news all the time. What makes you think that the media, including the far-right, would not make it front page news?

[–] tvfan (12972) a year ago

Why do you insist on asking stupid questions when you already know the answer.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

I clearly explained what I meant and I never even implied that the the mayor changed him because he funded the film. I said it wouldn’t surprise me if that turned out to be true. Are you trolling me? If you are it’s not funny.

The left is disproportionately going after this guy because he funded the film (and from what I understand it was a relatively small contribution). Yeah if he hadn’t funded the film it still might have made the news buried underneath Trump having too many scoops of ice cream and you people would have never gone after him with such enthusiasm. Be honest, you aren’t going after him because you are so passionate about stopping child kidnapping, you are going after him because you want to smear the film. You’re politicizing a huge travesty and atrocity.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

Disproportionately going after a child kidnapper? Do you think anyone is being too hard on this guy?

I'm not going after this guy, I'm happy to let law enforcement have him instead.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

Not what I said, I said your outrage towards him is 100% political and you aren’t sincere about it. Had he been a far left contributor it would probably be business as usual and you would just sweep the entire incident under the rug. Also the facts aren’t out yet and for all we know this is just another Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown false alarm.

EDIT: Also no matter what he may or may not have done that in no way diminishes the message of the film.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

I am just as outraged by this guy for allegedly kidnapping a child as I would be towards anyone who did the same thing. Nothing I've said about him should make you think otherwise.

Why don't quote the words I used that say my outrage is 100% political. I did not say anything like that, so it is all in your imagination.

Why do you think Marta is not far left? Exactly what do you know about this guy anyway?

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

I never made any claims about Marta’s political views, I don’t care, that’s the difference between you and me, with you your moral outrage is dictated by the other person’s political opinion, you have two different sets of rules for the left and the right. Marta could be a complete and total scumbag for all I know, he could have done everything you people are accusing him of and that would not mean you’ve made one nanometer of progress in slandering the message of the film. Child trafficking is bad no matter what.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

You say I have moral outrage. Show me where I expressed my outrage in this thread. I think the outrage is in your head and only a figment of your imagination. You can't even win an argument with yourself. :)

I did not slander the film. Again, that is all in your imagination.

Your accusations sound like confessions.

[–] tvfan (12972) a year ago

But he is right, you have expressed a moral outrage about it.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

You’re on here complaining that one of the financial backers (who from what I understand contributed a very very very low amount) somehow makes SOF a bad film that we shouldn’t watch. You have slandered the film, it’s burning you up inside that people like a film that doesn’t pander to your fragile little feelings and forces the audience to face and accept a very harsh and disturbing reality. You people would rather be told comforting lies than inconvenient truths. You’re a child.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

No, I'm responding to claims made about the man arrested for kidnapping. No where did I complain about the film. I said I read a few bad reviews of the film and heard people whining about others who do not like the film. I have expressed outrage at the child kidnapper. Why would you have a problem with that?

I have not slandered the film. Can you quote this alleged slander? I doubt that you understand what slander is anyway. I think the word you are looking for is libel.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

You’re attempting to attack the film by connecting the dots to this alleged kidnapper who from I understand had very very very limited involvement with the actual film. The message of the film and this accused kidnapper have nothing to do with each other. Everything he is being accused of could be true and that wouldn’t change the fact that child trafficking is bad as per the films theme.

You have slandered the film and I have pointed out multiple examples.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

I am not. Three days ago I posted;

I agree it has nothing to do with the film at all. Just because a single person associated with funding the film was arrested does not affect the film at all.

I responded to your post that blamed the "left" for "playing politics with child abuse". That was not an attack on the film.

I think you do not understand what slander is. Get back to the forum when you do.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

Your outrage over it is completely political and you have slandered it. You people claimed that SOF took money from a child trafficker which is a lie. One of the funders who contributed $500 years ago recently rented a room to a woman involved in a custody dispute. They didn’t take money from child traffickers, it is a lie and it is slander.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

I have no outrage over the film as I have not seen it yet. You can't even quote any allegedly outrage words I have used in this thread.

Where did I claim that SOF took money from a trafficker?

It appears that you do not know what the word slander means either.

I claimed that one of the people who helped fund SOF was arrested and that it had nothing to do with the film at all.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

Your cult has claimed that, so are you going to man up and admit that they are wrong? If not then that must mean you agree with them.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

I'm not part of a cult. Going to answer my questions? Figure out what the word slander means yet?

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

So since you won’t denounce your cult that means that you agree with them. Thank you for proving my point.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

I don't have a cult. Being a legend in your own mind is not the right way to debate.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

You didn’t answer my question. You’re deflecting.

[–] Ranb (9782) a year ago

You phrased your question so that any answer would require me to claim I am a member of a cult. That is dishonest.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

You don’t have to be a member of the far left death cult to denounce them. You’re just looking for excuses to not answer the question.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12144) a year ago

Lol at these QAnon wannabes accusing anyone of being in a cult.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

I don’t have anything to do with QAnon, you people are literally the ones who are obsessed with it.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12144) a year ago

Then why did you accuse of him being in a cult when he just happens to disagree with you?

You see, it works both ways.

Half this page is fans of this movie saying it's not part of the QAnon cult.

And then you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being in a cult.

You see how crazy this whole debate is?

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

I didn’t accuse him of being in a cult because he disagrees with me. I accused him for being in a cult because it’s beyond obvious that he’s incapable of thinking for himself and just parrots far left talking points he was brainwashed with.

The movie isn’t part of any QAnon “cult”, the movie does not have a political message. All it says is child trafficking is bad, the fact that you people find that statement controversial is what’s disturbing and crazy.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12144) a year ago

I have to go back to the more crucial point here though.

In 2020, OUR has revealed that only 25% of their received donations were spent on addressing child trafficking.

Where's the other 75% of the donations?

If this movie is an expose of child traffickers, great.

But it sounds more like a PR job for a corrupt charity.

There are more reputable organizations working to stop child traffickers. This organization is a fraud.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

Everything you said is irrelevant. Even IF what you said was true it wouldn’t invalidate the meaning of the film. All of your complaints are based on what happened off screen. Hell you haven’t even seen it, you’re just on a mission to discredit it because the far left fake news told you do.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12144) a year ago

One more time. The problem is that the charity promoted in the movie is skimming your donation money.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

I paid to see the movie, I wanted to see the movie. No one scammed me, I got what I paid for. You haven’t even seen the movie so you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12144) a year ago

Hold onto your wallet.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

Don’t think I will. It was a great film and I will definitely pay to own it on blu ray if it’s released in that format.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12144) a year ago

Okay, as long as you know that money doesn't help any children.

[–] nooneimportant (271) a year ago

And as long as you know that donating to Black Lives Matter doesn’t help any underprivileged minorities.

[–] maximmm (3344) a year ago

Interesting, if true.
I kept saying how this shit looks similar to 'kony2012' - which is another charity that took a just cause and monetized it for wealth and (rather shot-lived) fame.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12144) a year ago

I posted elsewhere on this thread an account of the group Operation Underground Railroad going to the Dominican Republic and asking "pimps" to get them children. The "pimps" oblige and are then busted by the police. The children are then released back on the street.

So yeah, they got some pimps busted. But overall it's a slipshod organization which does more harm than good.

[–] tvfan (12972) a year ago

Yeap, another fabricated lie by the leftist establishment.

The mainstream media is doing everything possible to deter people from seeing this movie.

[–] B1cKsurN (17484) a year ago

Lmao, 1 of 6700 crowd funders...how did the movie ever get made without him!?

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12144) a year ago

Oh JFC everything about this movie screams scumbags!