The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Former Prosecutor Joseph Morrissey Demonstrates Why Women Must Be Allowed To Have Guns (Part 2 of a 3 Part Series)

One of the most compelling moral arguments for allowing guns for ordinary self-defense—even if that isn’t the primary purpose of the Second Amendment but an ancillary benefit of the right to bear arms that it protects—is that it allows those who are physically weaker to protect themselves.  Now I do recognize that some women are physically stronger than some men.  But most women are not stronger than most men and a gun makes sense for them.  Indeed one of the more powerful arguments on this point was presented by a fellow tweeter, writing in response to some dumb gay-baiting by @bravestnewworld:


I mean, what do you even say to that, besides what I did say, which was how sorry I was that it happened to her?  I am reluctant to even share it, even though it was said publicly, but I think on balance she is saying something that women need to hear: pepper spray is not enough and neither is self-defense classes.  Get over your fear of guns and get one.

Likewise, there may be disabled persons who can hold their own in a fist fight, but it is wrong to expect the physically handicapped to rely on their physical prowess alone to defend themselves.  Which is not to say all handicapped persons should be allowed to carry a gun, but those who can operate one safely should be allowed to.

Those who would take away all guns, would leave those people at the mercy of the state to protect them.  In most cases, the power of the state—represented by the police—will not arrive until it is too late to prevent the crime.  So there can only be the hope of punishment—carried out by the police in cooperation with the prosecutors—and the hope of certainty of punishment as a deterrent.

Which is exactly where Joseph Morrissey comes in, as former Commonwealth’s Attorney.  That is what we in Virginia call a District Attorney.  In my last post, I argued that he was a living argument for tighter gun laws, a man of such volatile character that reasonable people can be quite concerned when he brandishes a gun in a public place.

But in another case, Morrisseey v. Virginia State Bar, as a Commonwealth Attorney, he demonstrated one of the most powerful arguments in favor of allowing ordinary people to own guns: because you cannot expect the state to enforce the law impartially, all the time.  Bear in mind, according to the disciplinary report I cited in the last post, this case resulted in him being charged with bribery and although that charge was dismissed, what you are about to read will make you think maybe he should have been convicted.


I am going to do something I normally don’t do.  I am going to quote extensively from a case I am citing, because the facts are really, really bad.  You really have to read most of it to see how bad things are.  So with apologies for the graphic nature of what you are about to read:

[Robert William Molyneux, III] was charged with the abduction and rape of Debra Jean Nuckols in Richmond. Molyneux's father employed James S. Yoffy, a Richmond attorney, to represent Molyneux, who was indigent.

Nuckols and Molyneux each gave inconsistent statements concerning the incident. At first, Nuckols claimed that she did not know Molyneux before he accosted and raped her in an alley as she was walking home from a Richmond night club in the early morning hours of June 9, 1991; however, Nuckols later admitted that she had danced with Molyneux while she was in the night club and had agreed to let him accompany her as she walked home. Molyneux also initially denied having had sexual intercourse with Nuckols, but when DNA tests later indicated the presence of his semen on Nuckols's underpants, he admitted commission of the act, but claimed it was consensual.

Independent DNA tests of Nuckols's clothing, arranged by Yoffy and paid for by Molyneux's father, produced other apparent inconsistencies in Nuckols's version of the incident. Nuckols claimed that she had not had sexual intercourse in the five weeks preceding her alleged rape by Molyneux, yet the DNA tests of semen samples found in her underpants disclosed the presence of semen from Molyneux and another male. Further, Nuckols said that Molyneux had urinated on her during the incident, but chemical tests failed to disclose the presence of urine on Nuckols's clothing.

Recognizing the problems in their respective cases, the two attorneys began to explore the possibility of a plea agreement. After Morrissey alluded to the cost to Molyneux's father of investigating Molyneux's case, Yoffy approached Morrissey about the possibility of settlement of the felony charges on an "accord and satisfaction" basis. In exchange for a nolle prosequi of the abduction charge...

Fyi, a nolle prosequi (or “nol-pross”) is much like a dismissal.  Going on…

...and a reduction of the rape charge to a charge of sexual battery, a misdemeanor, Molyneux was willing to agree to a 12-month sentence on the misdemeanor. The sentence was to be suspended upon the condition of his payment of court costs and completion of a period of probation, community service, and psychiatric counselling.

Additionally, Yoffy suggested that Molyneux would pay the victim "for her alleged damages," although no specific amount was discussed. According to Yoffy, Morrissey "liked the idea," but told Yoffy that he did not think that Nuckols would settle for less than $25,000.

Now so far, it’s a little questionable, but not out of bounds.  I mean if Nuckols was actually raped, a suspended sentence and $25K seems a little too weak as a punishment.  But given the problems in the evidence, it’s not unreasonable.  And if she is lying, then this is quite a payday.  And of course sitting here almost a decade after the fact and never having set eyes on the alleged attacker and the alleged victim, I won’t pretend to know the truth.

But Morrissey wanted more:

According to Yoffy, Morrissey "liked the idea," but told Yoffy that he did not think that Nuckols would settle for less than $25,000. Further, Morrissey said that if Nuckols "was going to get some money then the Commonwealth is going to get something out of it and [Morrissey] wanted $25,000" as partial funding of a television program called "Prosecutor's Corner." Explaining the program to Yoffy, Morrissey said that he "would be the focal point and he would have guests on, [to] explain prosecution oriented issues."

Right, it’s all in the public interest, and what a coincidence it will make him a star!  And what a coincidence, that will help with his political career!  That is, if you believe in Yoffy’s version of events.

But according to Yoffy, this set off alarm bells (as it would me):

Believing that this was an inappropriate use of the money, Yoffy told Morrissey that "perhaps a charity would be a better beneficiary than something more related to him."

In a later meeting, Yoffy told Morrissey that "a charity was acceptable to my client and that I had $50,000 to work with." Morrissey then told Yoffy that if the parties agreed to a settlement, Morrissey wanted the Commonwealth's share of the money to be contributed to several charities which he would select.

At Yoffy's request, Morrissey arranged to meet with Nuckols and Yoffy so that Yoffy could offer Nuckols $25,000 as an "accord and satisfaction."

So one might argue that as questionable as it is to take a huge chunk of change and give it to various charities to be named by Morrissey, but as long as the victim signs off on it, you might think it isn’t too bad, right?  I mean as I explained in a different context in justifying my ongoing quest to get Brett Kimberlin prosecuted for his attempt to frame me for a crime, the victim’s input should ideally be relevant:

Now it is true that the State’s Attorney [what they call a District Attorney, in Maryland] has absolute discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute a case.  I don’t believe there is any authority in the state of Maryland or the United States of America to force them to prosecute Brett Kimberlin as a matter of law.  Lots of people can put pressure on them, but they make the call.  There is a reason why criminal cases are called ______ v. State, because the other party to the case isn’t the victim of the crime, but the state and therefore it is the state’s decision whether or not to take the case forward.

But it doesn’t follow from that, that it’s none of my business whether he is prosecuted for the crimes he has committed against me.  It just means that the only way Kimberlin will be prosecuted is if I can persuade the authorities to prosecute him.

So while it isn’t up to Nuckols to decide whether justice is done, if she was happy with a settlement of $25K for her, $25K for the various charities, and then a suspended sentence, if she could live with that, you might reasonably decide that you could live with that, too.  Oh, except there is this next line in the court’s opinion:

Before this meeting, Morrissey asked Yoffy not to tell Nuckols about the additional $25,000 to be paid to the charities.

At the time of the meeting, Nuckols was aware of all the conditions of the proposed plea agreement, except the proposed charitable contributions by Molyneux's father.

So he made sure Nuckols didn’t know about that element of the deal.  Don’t you think she deserved to know that Morrissey was getting a benefit from it?

Now, you might pause and say, “well, how exactly does Morrissey benefit from this deal?  I mean what does he care that these charities get the money?”  The Supreme Court of Virginia had an explanation.  To jump ahead of our story a bit (and toward the end of the opinion), Nuckols was eventually persuaded to accept this deal--$25K to her, $25K to the charities of Morrissey’s choice, and a suspended sentence (after nol-prossing the charge of kidnapping):

The evidence is clear that the charitable contributions were made to influence Morrissey's action as Commonwealth's Attorney in the plea bargaining process. The issue here is whether these payments constituted something of value to Morrissey[.]

Because as you might imagine, if a prosecutor lets a personal benefit to him alter his official actions, not only is that potentially bribery, but it is unethical for him to do so as an attorney.  After going through some arguments that are less important, the court gets to the meat of the matter of why this is a benefit to Morrissey: because it would help his political career.  To quote from the Virginia Supreme Court:

At the time of the plea bargaining negotiations in the summer of 1992, Morrissey knew that he would face a reelection campaign in 1993. When Yoffy rejected Morrissey's proposal to use the $25,000 for the television program "Prosecutor's Corner" and told Morrissey that "a charity" would be acceptable to his client, Yoffy had planned to have Molyneux's father make the charitable contributions himself in order to qualify for a tax deduction. However, during the negotiations, Yoffy got the impression that Morrissey wanted Yoffy to make the contributions from the father's funds, and that such contributions would be made to several major charities named by Morrissey.

After Molyneux was convicted and the money had been deposited with Yoffy, Morrissey directed Yoffy to make the first disbursement of $7,000 by having cashier's checks prepared to eight local charitable organizations in sums ranging from $250 to $2,000 and delivering those checks to Morrissey's office. When Yoffy expressed his concern that Morrissey was planning to use the checks for political purposes, Morrissey responded, "[w]e've got a deal and you better live up to it." Yoffy took this statement as a threat that Morrissey might have Molyneux re-indicted on the abduction charge that had been nol-prossed pursuant to the plea agreement.

Let me break in there.  In other words, Yoffy was concerned that if he didn’t do what Morrissey asked his client might have found his entire plea bargain thrown out.  This sounds downright extortionate.

Accordingly, at Morrissey's direction, Yoffy issued and delivered to Morrissey 47 checks totalling nearly $25,000 payable to the various charities named by Morrissey. Almost all the charities were located in Richmond.

Morrissey's letters reflected a number of methods by which he delivered these checks and informed each charity that he had chosen it as the recipient of a donation from an anonymous donor. In one instance, Morrissey confirmed by letter to the pastor of one church in Richmond that a $2,000 donation "by an anonymous donor" had been delivered by Morrissey during his visit to the church the preceding Sunday and "[a]s I indicated in my brief remarks, I was given the donation and allowed to make it to the charity of my choice." In other instances, Morrissey mailed the checks following telephone conversations with representatives of the charities, or simply mailed the check with a cover letter, but Morrissey never failed to let the donee charity know that he had selected that charity as the donee of the gift.

In our opinion, Morrissey's carefully orchestrated scheme was designed to secure something of value to Morrissey—the possibility that members of the donee charities would express their gratitude in the form of political support in the forthcoming election.

Thus the court found that it was a personal benefit to Morrissey and was therefore unethical in the eyes of the court.

That is taking the story out of order, but I think it gives us needed context when we discuss the rest of this case.  We know that Morrissey was eventually going to seek what the Virginia Supreme Court viewed as a personal benefit from this deal.  And that puts everything he does in this case into a new light.

So to rewind a bit, we go back to this meeting just after Yoffy first suggested this plea arrangement and after noting that Nuckols was not told about the $25K Morrissey was directing to charities of his choice.  This is how the meeting went:

During the meeting, Morrissey made it clear that if Nuckols accepted the offer, the criminal charges would be disposed of by plea agreement; however, if she rejected the offer, the charges would be prosecuted. After pointing out to Nuckols some of the inconsistencies in her statements, Yoffy "offered her $25,000 to settle the case." Yoffy was asked to leave the room so that Nuckols could discuss the matter with Morrissey.

So now Nuckols was alone with Morrissey, under the  impression that Morrissey was only concerned about her well-being and justice in general.  And this is what happened:

Upon being asked his opinion of the offer, Morrissey told Nuckols that if she "were his sister that he would strongly suggest to her that she consider the offer."

So he pushes her to accept this offer.  And then things get even more sinister.  According to the Court’s version of events, he appears to act to prevent the alleged victim from getting a larger share of the $50K that Yoffy could offer:

When Nuckols later indicated that she would consider an offer of $100,000, Morrissey replied that "the offer was not up for negotiation." After hearing that Nuckols had rejected his offer, Yoffy suggested a reduction of the charities' share with a corresponding increase of Nuckols's share. Morrissey rejected this idea, insisting that the Commonwealth receive an equal amount of the settlement.

And then we get to how Nuckols was finally persuaded to accept the offer:

Thereafter, in preparation for the felony trial, Yoffy filed a motion in limine to obtain a ruling regarding the introduction of a psychiatrist's opinion indicating that Nuckols "could very well have made this attack up" because of a mental illness that had occurred five years earlier. Although Morrissey advised 618*618 Yoffy that he did not plan to have Nuckols testify in the hearing on his motion, Morrissey told Yoffy that he planned to have her there "so she could appreciate what it would be like to be a witness and what evidence might come in against her."

At the hearing on August 18, 1992, Nuckols found the psychiatrist's testimony regarding her psychiatric past "very painful" and she was "devastated at the thought that it could be used at the actual trial." When the Honorable Thomas N. Nance, the judge presiding at the hearing and the subsequent criminal trial, told the lawyers in a side-bar conference that the evidence would not be admitted, Yoffy asked the court to withhold its ruling because the lawyers were negotiating "civil aspects" of the case. Judge Nance withheld a formal ruling and also indicated to the lawyers that he "[did not] want to hear anything about ... a civil case."

So just to keep track of things, the judge said that this evidence was not coming in.  And Morrissey knew that.  So he told Nuckols not to worry about it, right?  Right?

Um, no:

After the hearing, when Nuckols asked Morrissey whether the psychiatric evidence would be admissible, Morrissey responded that he did not know.  Nuckols then asked Morrissey if he thought that the offer of settlement was still available.

So he held back information from her and then by the timing of it, it appears that this fear that she would have her psychological dirty laundry aired out before the whole world made her more willing to deal.

Later, Morrissey called Nuckols and told her that the offer was still available and that he had "basically settled it on [her] behalf." At Morrissey's request, Nuckols wrote him a letter indicating that the Commonwealth was "ready to go forward with the case but I wanted to accept the offer and to thank them for their support."

And of course, it was equally important that the judge didn’t get a wiff of this:

Shortly thereafter, Molyneux, Yoffy, and Morrissey appeared before Judge Nance to obtain court acceptance of their plea agreement. Moments before that hearing, Morrissey asked Yoffy not to tell the court about the part of the agreement relating to the proposed contributions of Molyneux's father to charities of Morrissey's choice.

At the hearing, Morrissey proffered the Commonwealth's evidence and advised the court of all the terms of the plea agreement except for the father's $25,000 payments to Nuckols and to the charities. Acting on this information and Molyneux's guilty plea to the misdemeanor of sexual battery, the court found Molyneux guilty, sentenced him, and suspended the sentence upon the conditions disclosed to the court by Morrissey. The court also sustained the Commonwealth's motion to nolle prosequi the abduction charge. Thereafter, Molyneux's father delivered $50,000 to Yoffy in accordance with the agreement.

And then you know the rest.  According to the Court’s findings, Morrissey turned them into anonymous donations made at his direction, with the Virginia Supreme Court’s belief that this was designed to aid his reelection campaign.

Now, I am not going to pretend I know whether this woman was actually raped or what.  As a matter of law, we can call Molyneux a rapist, or at least a person guilty of sexual assault, but sometimes people do plead guilty to crimes they did not commit, while I tend to believe the woman I am not certain enough to declare one side right and the other wrong.

But what if she is right?  I mean only she and her alleged attacker know, but what if she is telling the truth?  Then she might feel her justice was sold to the highest bidder.  She might feel that she had been manipulated into giving the green light to a lighter punishment than they could have obtained, if she had only demanded prosecution.

And if you were a woman in this guy’s jurisdiction, would you feel confident that if God forbid you were raped, or otherwise attacked, that you could get justice?  Would any of us if we were the victim of any kind of crime?

The good news, however, is that at least Nuckols can buy a gun and if a man should ever attack her in the future, she might be able to fend off the attack.  Of course perfect justice is that she is saved from the attack and the man is prosecuted for the attempt.  Sadly no law can 100% protect us from the kind of corruption that the Virginia Supreme Court found in this case, and for that matter, carrying a gun is no guarantee she will never be raped in the future.

But at least it gives her a fighting chance.

Which is more than I can say for the women of D.C.  But that will be the next post...

---------------------------------------

Oh and as a glorious post script to this story, Mr. Morrissey wants to be Virginia’s next Attorney General, and is seeking the Democratic nomination.  As a conservative let me just say that I hope and pray he is the nominee.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.

1 comment: