Anti-Gun Actress Indicted for Sending Pro-Gun Ricin Letters

Or: “Can I Call It or What?”

So apparently letters were being sent to President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg and his gun control group with ricin in them and with apparent pro-Second-Amendment ranting in the letters themselves:

The letter sent to Bloomberg -- and an additional one sent to a gun control group he founded -- contained what could be described as an overzealous pro-gun position.

"You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns," the letters said, a law enforcement official told CNN. "Anyone wants to come to my house will be shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional God-given right and I will exercise that right 'til the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you," the note inside each envelope said, according to the official.

CNN obtained a copy of the letter sent to mayors' gun control group, postmarked May 20 in Shreveport, Louisiana, and the wording matched the account provided by the law enforcement official.

The letter addressed to Obama that was intercepted Wednesday appeared similar to these letters.

As an aside, oddly, the response to this apparent act of terrorism, is defiance.  Obama continued to push for gun control, and meanwhile Bloomberg had this response:

Bloomberg said this latest threat won't intimidate him.

"There's 12,000 people that are gonna get killed this year with guns and 19,000 that are going to commit suicide with guns, and we're not going to walk away from those efforts," Bloomberg said.

Of course I am being facetious.  Bloomberg and Obama shouldn’t be pursuing gun control, but not out of fear of private violence.  Instead they should be persuaded away from it by peaceful means.  The use of terrorism to get your way in a debate is simply wrong.  But the funny thing is that many liberals believe that when an Islamofascist says he will kill a person if they blaspheme his faith, that we must not blaspheme their faith.  They even blame the blasphemer for the violence that follows, instead of the people who got violent.  These same people who rightly claim we have a constitutional right to create something like the Piss Christ or to burn an American flag, and those who are offended should not resort to violence over it, think that we must refrain from drawings such as these...

(Beware the dreaded stick figures of blasphemy!)

...lest there be violence.  So only certain kinds of terrorism should be surrendered to, but the question is why that and not others?  Mind you, not all liberals feel this way, but too many do.

But I digress...

Still, when I saw the latest round of apparently politically motivated terror, something didn’t smell right to me.  In response to one such incident, I tweeted out the following:

Here's what I am having trouble buying w these ricin stories... http://t.co/seKp8pK5Df don't these criminals know by now that if u (cont)
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) May 30, 2013

(cont) send ricin to a major politician it'll never get even close to him or her? So I suspect this is Moby-ism.
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) May 30, 2013

Now that takes a little translation.  So the first part of my logic was this: ricin letters is a terrible way to actually try to kill a person, especially a politician.  There are people paid to screen these people’s mail, so even if the ricin could be so weaponized to be deadly to the person opening it, it will be nowhere near the apparent target.  For instance this is what this report said about the letter to Bloomberg:

One letter was discovered at City Hall's mail sorting facility at 100 Gold St. on Friday, a law enforcement source told NBC 4 New York. It appeared to contain a pink, oily substance when a mail worker came across it and was immediately flagged as suspicious.

An initial field test didn't bring up any sign of ricin, a source said. But more preliminary testing Wednesday showed the letter tested positive for ricin.

Likewise the letter sent to the President was sorted at some site far from the White House.  And the one set to the gun control group was opened by a secretary, rather than the name on the envelope.  The point is that this ricin attack was really, really ineffectual and anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together would recognize that it would be ineffectual before it happened.

So that led me to argue that this is Moby-ism.  Which if you are not up on the current slang probably needs to be translated.  The musician Moby once suggested to liberals that they should falsely pretend to be conservative and say things to harm conservatives.  Sometimes it is planting false rumors: “I’m a conservative but I heard this republican secretly had a child aborted!”  And sometimes it is saying outrageous things in order to try to get someone to agree with them.  Like for instance, a “Moby” might say this about the budget issues: “Obama is blowing a hole in the deficit because n----rs like him can’t count.”  The person writing this is in fact an Obama supporter posting this comment in order to try to make the other side look bad by agreeing with them.

So what I was arguing is that this appeared to be a frame up.  My hypothesis was that this was a gun-control liberal posing as a pro-Second-Amendment conservative in order to frame Second-Amendment conservatives and put them into disrepute.

And it looks like I am probably (partially) right, if this indictment turns out to be true:

A Texas actress in a troubled marriage was arrested and charged Friday in connection with ricin-tainted letters that were mailed last month to President Barack Obama and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, authorities said.

Shannon Richardson, 35, also known as Shannon Rogers and Shannon Guess, initially told the FBI that her husband, Nathaniel, sent the ricin-laced letters, but a polygraph exam found her to be "deceptive" on the matter, court papers said.

Investigators found that her computer storage devices contained the text of threatening letters sent to the president, but the couple's computer records show her husband couldn't have printed them out because he was at work at the time, an FBI arrest affidavit said.

On Thursday, Shannon Richardson told investigators she mailed the ricin-tainted letters, but she claimed that her husband typed the letters and forced her to print and mail them, the affidavit said.

Her husband denied involvement and claimed his wife wanted to end their marriage and leave him, the affidavit said. He told investigators that his wife was "intentionally misleading" them, the court papers said.

Shannon Richardson is accused of mailing a threatening communication to the president and faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted, according to a statement from U.S. Attorney John M. Bales' office in Texas.

For informational purposes and not at all for Rule 5 purposes, here’s a picture of her:

But of course this comes on the heels of some very excellent blog reporting over at Weapons Man.

At this time, a providential break in the case occurred: a New Boston woman named Shannon Richardson walked in to the FBI in Shreveport, LA, and fingered her husband, Nathaniel, as the mailer. Nathaniel was dangerous. He had lots of guns. He didn’t like the President. He was a combat wounded veteran, and he was employed in the defense industrial base (these are all things the FBI has been directed to consider warning signs). The FBI swarmed him at work.

To their shock and surprise, Nathaniel Richardson was cooperative. He said his marriage was on the rocks, and said anything Shannon told them was probably bullshit. Apparently one of the many stressors in their failed marriage was their disparate attitude towards guns. He consented to a search of his vehicle.

The search found a dozen castor beans in the trunk of his silver Maxima. Castor beans are the essential source of ricin. Still, they didn’t take him into custody. They did tell him not to leave town.

Meanwhile, other agents conducted a limited consent search of the Richardson home, finding and taking with Shannon’s consent numerous electronic gadgets that let them establish that Nathaniel’s computer had indeed been used to order castor beans and items for preparing ricin (lye and syringes). Shannon’s cell phone, which she also permitted them to examine, had nothing suspicious on it.

At this point, the FBI had a pretty good suspicion that the ricin letters originated at the Richardson home, but they had no real proof either spouse was guilty — each fingered the other, and the physical and computer forensics didn’t close the suspicion gap on either one.

I would suggest you read the whole thing, but it turns out much like Jodi Arias it was the multiple stories that sank her credibility.  First she suspected her husband was involved.  Then she knew he was involved and deliberately planted evidence to help the police catch him for what he actually did.  Then she actually did all of it, but only because her husband forced her to.  Yeah, I supposed that’s possible, but as the third story she has told, it doesn’t seem very credible.

So to be totally accurate I was (allegedly) close.  She was apparently trying to strike a blow against gun rights, but surely her estrangement is for more personal reasons.  At least I hope it was.  It would just pure craziness if the only reason why they broke up was over politics.

Anyway, this leads us to the least surprising sentence written in any article, ever: “Also on Thursday, Nathaniel Richardson filed for divorce.”  Glad a person is being smart with their heart for once.  I don’t believe in divorce at the drop of a hat, but I think sometimes it is exactly the right thing to do, and this is one of those times.

But sadly there is more, a child involved:

His wife is pregnant, and the anticipated birth date and sex of the fetus is not known, the divorce lawsuit said. The couple married on October 8, 2011, the [divorce] suit said.

I suspect there will be a decent chance her lawyer will argue she has some kind of pregnancy induce madness.  Not that this should work (it is indeed insulting to women generally), but lawyers will often use any tool at their disposal, insulting or not.

And I think it is also appropriate here to talk about blame.  As I have said before, I am reluctant to put the blame on someone’s words for someone else actions (outside of true incitement).  But sometimes I think it really is relevant.  For instance, I laid Chris Dorner’s crimes at the feet at liberals because he explicitly stated his hope that his crimes would bring him sympathy.  Likewise, here, it appears Mrs. Richardson was hoping that her crimes would harm the Second Amendment movement.  This was more than likely done with the  knowledge that the media would do exactly that: hold this crime against those who support gun control.  This is not to reduce Richardson’s blame one bit, but every person who has blamed conservatives at the drop of a hat from the crimes of others bears some of the blame for this crime.  An introspective left might look at this story and decide to reform itself.  I mean fat chance of it happening, but it would be the appropriate response.

And of course I might be accused of projecting my own life experiences into this, but every effort needs to be made to see her punished not only for the crime but for the attempt to frame her husband for it.  The disruption that this has likely caused him calls out for justice.

Finally as a coda to this story, here’s a picture of Richardson in a bathing suit with a gun.  To expose her hypocrisy, of course, and not for rule 5 purposes:

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

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.