Nudist dad faces child porn charges; claims photos are "family portraits" (Palm Beach, Florida)

WTF indeed. And one of these "family portraits" just happened to be a close-up photo of the daughter's genitalia. Right.

Notice that there is ZERO mention of a mother in this home. Is there one? Or is this a single father? If so, how did he secure "access" and just what are his custodial rights anyway?

The pervert dad is identified as BRIAN MARTENS.

http://www.ryot.org/wtf-florida-nudist-father-facing-child-porn-charges-claims-photos-family-portraits/461093

WTF Florida? Nudist Father Faces Child Porn Charges, Claims Photos are ‘Family Portraits’

November 7, 2013 at 3:20 pm
By Anna Culaba, RYOT News

The most unusual defense for a crime of the week goes to Brian Martens of Palm Beach, FL.

The 53-year-old was arrested and now faces pornography charges for taking nude photographs of his three young daughters. If that wasn’t bad enough, he shared them with other men too.

Martens, who lives at a nudist colony, is mounting an unusual defense. He’s arguing that there was nothing sexual about the photos taken by a neighbor, and that, in fact, they’re regular family portraits. One regular family portrait just happens to be a close-up of his daughter’s genitals.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, a grand jury has determined that there is enough evidence to indict Martens on one count of producing child pornography and one count of receiving child pornography.

After reviewing the photographs, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bill Matthewman told the court, “Several of these photos the court has reviewed are lascivious… They are, in the court’s opinion, sexually explicit.”

Federal agents from Homeland Security Investigations probed Martens earlier this year after they found inappropriate photographs of his children on the computer of Grey Vanaman, the neighbor who took the regular family portraits.

Martens attorney agreed that one of the photos taken was indeed pornographic in nature, but argued that Marten’s did not know that the photograph of his daughter’s genital area ever existed, nor did he ever give his permission for it to be shot.

“The girls have no clothes on… but they’re not doing anything of a sexual nature,” Marten’s attorney James Eisenberg said. “If they were young ladies who had clothing on, no one would consider them pornographic.”

Martens is facing between 15 and 30 years in federal prison if he is convicted of the child porn production charge and five to 20 years if convicted of receiving child pornography.

Vanaman is serving 60 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to charges of receiving and possessing child pornography.