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

Anti-Gun Virginia Delegate Joseph Morrissey Demonstrates the Insufficiency of Our Gun Laws By Making You Wonder Why He is Allowed to Carry a Gun (Part 1 of a 3 Part Series)

I often say God Bless Virginia because they made it very easy to get a gun when I needed one (due to my year-long saga of harassment at the hands of Brett Kimberlin and his associates).  I had to pass a background check, etc., but once I gave the dealer the money, they gave me my handgun.

But there are still gun grabbers even in my great state, including Delegate Joe Morrissey, who made news the other day brandishing an AK-47 on the floor of the House of Delegates.  You can watch video footage of it here:

As you can see, while brandishing the gun, he actually put his thumb over the trigger.  In fact, I believe I see it wiggling over the trigger which makes any responsible gun owner get the willies.  Now, he says it was unloaded, and it was always pointed upward, but that is still simply bad gun safety and indeed might even be illegal.  Still in and of itself, mosty it was just a silly stunt, akin to David Gregory waving that magazine around on national television.

And that got people digging a little deeper into Mr. Morrissey’s background, and let’s just say its, um, colorful.  From the Daily Caller:

[W]hile Morrissey introduced a gun-control bill Thursday aimed at reducing criminal violence in Virginia, he has a history that involves physical violence of another kind.
Morrissey paid a man $500,000 in 2007 to settle a 2002 court judgment against him, related to a 1999 physical assault.

According to legal brief filed by the victim’s attorneys, Morrissey shouted, “I’m going to kill you. I’m going to beat your head in,” before beating the victim and “smash[ing] his head into the corner of a brick wall.”

The 2003 revocation of Morrissey’s law license followed that courtroom reckoning, but by then his disciplinary record in the legal profession was already a lengthy one.

After he applied for the reinstatement of his law license, the Virginia State Bar listed a litany of Morrissey’s misdeeds when it published his petition.

It forced him to attend legal ethics training after he represented a criminal defendant in the same case in which he had previously prosecuted him. Another reprimand came for engaging in a fist fight with a defense attorney whose client he was prosecuting.

In 1999, the bar suspended Morrissey’s law license again, this time for three years, after he made “public statements about the identity, testimony or credibility of prospective witnesses” in a federal court case.

Morrissey was convicted on two counts of contempt of court in that case, and sentenced to 90 days in jail plus three years of probation. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia also disbarred him, effectively denying him future access to plead cases in federal court.

In a separate case that contributed to that suspension of his law license, Morrissey was cited for contempt in Chesterfield County, Va. after he directed an angry outburst at a judge during a sentencing hearing.

After he was released from jail, Morrissey violated the terms of his probation by “attempting to circumvent the conditions of probation and lying to [his] probation officer,” according to the Virginia State Bar. As a result, he spent an additional 90 days in jail and his law license was formally revoked.

The bar issued a recommendation to the Supreme Court of Virginia in May 2011, arguing that Morrissey’s petition for reinstatement should be denied. The court disagreed, ruling in December 2011 that he could have his law license back after ten years of disbarment.

Indeed, you can read that recommendation, here.  It was indeed unanimous.  I suggest you read the whole lurid thing.  You will really be surprised that the Virginia Supreme Court reinstated him after all he had done.  And it adds some things you might not know.  For one, he has been convicted of assault and battery following one of his fist-fights.  Most lawyers, of course, would perk their ears up upon hearing that, making you wonder if it was legal to possess such a firearm after such a conviction.

Well, under 18 U.S.C. §924 of the US Code, it is illegal for a violent felon (among other categories of persons) to posses a firearm, but a violent felon is defined in relevant part as a person convicted of an offense “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”  As of today, assault and battery in Virginia carries a possible punishment of no more than a year.  So literally it misses the cut off by a split second, meaning that if the possible term of punishment was for one split-second more than a year he would have been disqualified from ever possessing a gun again.

And there is speculation that he may or may not have been concealing that weapon, which is of course legal if he has a concealed carry permit.  But there is some room for doubt on this point.  On one hand, people who have been convicted of any assault and battery are barred from obtaining a concealed carry permit... if the conviction was in the last three years.  But on top of that, there is also this restriction:

An individual who the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on specific acts by the applicant, is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth may submit to the court a sworn written statement indicating that, in the opinion of such sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth, based upon a disqualifying conviction or upon the specific acts set forth in the statement, the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The statement of the sheriff, chief of police, or the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be based upon personal knowledge of such individual or of a deputy sheriff, police officer, or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth of the specific acts, or upon a written statement made under oath before a notary public of a competent person having personal knowledge of the specific acts.

In other words, the statute has lots of specific and well-drawn examples of people they will not allow a concealed carry permit for, and in case they missed anything, they have this too.  Because sometimes a person is dangerous, but they don’t fall into the various neat categories of dangerousness.  And if you go through that entire report from the disciplinary committee, you will know that he really doesn’t sound like the kind of guy who should be granted a concealed carry permit.  In addition to the two fist-fights—one of which was in a courtroom during a criminal trial—he has also been disciplined for outbursts in court and even threatening a judge.  Yes, really.  I tracked down the threatening claim and here’s what happened.  Apparently a judge was very harsh on one of his subordinates when he was working as a Commonwealth’s Attorney (what we call a District Attorney in Virginia) and there was apparently a dispute that resulted in this letter:

Dear Mr. Driscoll:

Let me break in for a moment.  Driscoll is a judge.  Moving on:

It has been brought to my attention, by several individuals, that you were both highly critical of, and abusive towards, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, [S.B.], Monday morning, June 17, 1991.

I am omitting the name of the Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney involved.  I don’t want to embarrass the man more than necessary.  Moving on:

Apparently, during the case of Commonwealth v. Silva, you severely rebuked Mr. [B.] for not having Sargeant material available. Additionally, I was told that you used your position (i.e. substitute Judge) to generally criticize the Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney's Office.

Please be advised that on his own volition, Mr. [B.] drove to Henrico County on Friday, June 14, 1991 in order to obtain one packet of Sargeant material. Additionally, he called the Southside Clerk's Office on two occasions to get the second packet of Sargeant material. Unfortunately, the Southside Clerk's office was unable to get the Sargeant material to Mr. [B.] as quickly as Mr. [B.] would have liked. Accordingly, your criticism of Mr. [B.], including your caustic and derogatory remarks from the bench, were entirely uncalled for.

Mr. [B.], former Law Clerk for Justice Poff on the Virginia Supreme Court, was described by everyone in the Court Room on June 17 as thoroughly prepared, extremely competent and most courteous. He did not deserve your verbal lambasting.

In the future, should you have any criticism of this Office or specifically, one of My [sic] Assistant Commonwealth's Attorneys, you are directed to set up an appointment with Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney, William H. Parcell, III so that you can voice your complaints in a more professional manner.

Finally, five police officers and one attorney observed the colloquy between you and me in the Courtroom. Although I was unfailingly courteous to you, it was evident to everybody that you were trying to bait me—perhaps so you could hold me in contempt. Please be assured Mr. Driscoll that if that behavior ever, ever, happens again, I will not be so kind as to merely draft you a letter of indignation.

Sincerely yours, /s/ Joseph D. Morrissey Joseph D. Morrissey Commonwealth's Attorney

(Emphasis added.)  Now that italicized line might be a threat to do something legal, such as filing disciplinary charges against the judge in question, or something to that effect.  But it’s plainly a threat, and therefore troubling.

So reading all of that above, plainly this was almost “performance art” where Mr. Morrissey very successfully advocated for stricter gun laws, by brandishing a gun in an unsafe manner, and having a background that would make any person nervous about letting him have a gun.

Or you can take Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit’s spin, describing this as “Further support for my theory that these people favor gun controls because they assume that others are as unstable as themselves[.]”  That might be it, too.

But if he is an argument against free gun ownership, there is something in his background that equally makes one believe that we must have the right to bear arms.  But that will be the subject of the next post. 


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.



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.

No comments:

Post a Comment