Charge Dropped Against Levittown Man Accused of Sending ‘Lewd Image’

Brian Schulz was admittedly having a hard time “controlling” his “emotions.” The Levittown man can now breathe a sigh of relief as the harassment offense he was charged with was dropped by District Court Judge Frank W. Perenteau Sr. last week.

Accused of harassing his former girlfriend, who is also the mother his child, Schulz testified during his preliminary hearing last week. The move by by Defense Attorney Paul Gregory Lang is unusual for a preliminary hearing.

Lang successfully argued that the image sent to the victim was taken “out of context” and that Schulz was sharing his embarrassment about co-workers finding the image on his home computer.

Schulz testified that the computer, once owned by the victim, had software related to his computer programming position installed by his employer on a personal computer.

The Levittown man said he works from home often and that was why the program needed to be installed.

According to court documents, Schulz sent a photo of the victim  using the bathroom, which  said “everyone loved.”

Schulz explained that when put into context he was expressing a sense of embarrassment because his co-workers saw the image he claimed he did not know was on the computer.

In the original complaint, the victim alleged she had been “harassed” continually by her ex-boyfriend with text messages and e-mails which disturbed her. The alleged harassment lead her to request Schulz leave her alone.

Lang made the argument that much of what was being alleged by the commonwealth was not being considered in the context of parental concerns.

While cross examining the victim, there were several stoppages so text messages and e-mails could be read aloud to the court in order for Perenteau to hear and see the actual evidence from the woman’s cell phone.

When real aloud, the “this is my favorite…”  comment allegedly made by Schultz became “this were the people’s favorite picture,” which for about five minutes was disputed by both sides, however, due to “nervousness” the victim testified she misread it.

Pereanteau didn’t think the error was intentional and the about 45 minute long proceeding continued with the judge asking why did he send the image to begin with.

“I honestly don’t recall,” Schultz said. “I wasn’t honestly trying to harass her.”

Defense counsel read the harassment  statute  aloud making the argument that “lewd, lascivious, threatening or up-scene words” that his client was simply communicating his embarrassment being found by the IT personnel of his company, as doesn’t meet the burden required for the charge.”

No one has shown he is harassing her because of the nature of their relationship she’s taking it as harassment but he has the right to call her because of their kid, Lang said.

The actual sending of that image in my eyes is not harassment, Perenteau said, I don’t know if it was sent to inflame the victim or that  Schultz doesn’t have good taste but I’m going to have to dismiss the charge and the commonwealth is free to re-present a case in the future, the district court judge said.