A Tale of Two Pleas

Yesterday’s headlines had people contacting me asking, “Did you see that the first defendant has pleaded out?”  Well, this was actually the second defendant (not the first).  And, yes. 

The plea deals are going to bother me more than most.

They should bother you, too, and here’s why.

Walk it through the basics first.

Anna Morgan-Lloyd, age 49 of Indiana, was arrested February 24, and charged with four counts, as follows:

• Entering and remaining in a restricted building (18 USC §1752(a)(1))

• Disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building (18 USC §1752(a)(2))

• Violent entry and disorderly conduct in a capitol building (40 USC §5104(e)(2)(D))

• Parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building (40 U.S.C. §5104(e)(2)(G))

By March 19, the US DOJ sent her attorney a plea offer that, upon signing by Morgan-Lloyd, became the “Plea Agreement.”  It was approved on June 23, 2021 by the Hon. Royce C. Lamberth of the Washington, D.C. District Court.  It amounts to a guilty plea on the lesser of the four charges.

Now your homework.

A plea deal is a package of papers, and the one document I’d like you to read through is the “Statement of Offense in Support of Guilty Plea,” signed by Morgan-Lloyd on May 27.  It was drafted by the US DOJ, and it asserts that “If this case were to go to trial, the government would prove the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt,” and it goes on from there for four, double-spaced pages, including:

• “Only authorized people with appropriate identification are allowed access inside the U.S. Capitol.”

• “On January 6, 2021, the exterior plaza of the U.S. Capitol was closed to members of the public.

• “The crowd was not lawfully authorized to enter or remain in the building, and, prior to entering the building, no members of the crowd submitted to security screenings or weapons checks by U.S. Capitol Police Officers or other authorized security officials.”

• “…shortly after 2:00 p.m., individuals in the crowd forced entry into the U.S. Capitol, including by breaking windows and by assaulting members of law enforcement, as others in the crowd encouraged and assisted those acts.”

• “The riot resulted in substantial damage to the U.S. Capitol, requiring the expenditure of more than $1.4 million dollars for repairs.”

And here’s the rub.

These (and other) sentences signed off on by Morgan-Lloyd are conclusions of law that can be reached only by a judge following a trial or are facts yet to be established about other people and about property.  None of it, or the other sentences concerning what was or was not going on in the Senate chamber, was in the direct eye witnessing or personal knowledge of Anna Morgan-Lloyd and should not have been part of any document to which she would sign her name.

The “Statement of Offense in Support of Guilty Plea” should only have contained such statements of personal conduct and witness that meet the essential elements of the crime to which the defendant is pleading.  It has to be made with intimate personal knowledge. 

Was Morgan-Lloyd physically present in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 at or about 2:00 p.m.?  Did she physically cross the threshold of any Capitol building, as defined by statute?  When she did so, was she engaged in a parade, demonstration, or picket, as such terms are commonly defined?

That’s it.  Not even how long she was there.  Not even whether she left.  Only the essential elements.

Morgan-Lloyd has been converted from a defendant with rights under the Constitution to a witness for the DOJ to their narrative. 

Compare this outcome to her alleged Facebook post that day: “I’m so glad we were there.  For the experience and memory but most of all we can spread the truth about what happened and open the eyes of some of our friends.”

 As I have been saying, the US DOJ is working as a PR machine to establish a set narrative for January 6.  You can see it for yourself in the many charging documents in case after case, beginning with the first defendants changed, just days after January 6.  All such documents violate the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 7 for spewing extraneous verbiage unrelated to the charges.  Sadly, it’s that “surplusage” (formal term) that is the copy and paste of mass media, where investigative journalism is all but extinct.

Beware the government, whether through attorneys or law enforcement, that would have you sign off on what you do not and could not know. 

What else?

There’s one other thing about the Morgan-Lloyd plea deal that I’d like to highlight.  Perhaps a small point, but note it and tuck it away.  As the plea deals start stacking up, I’ll try amassing some data sets and we’ll come back around it this again.

Morgan-Lloyd and her alleged co-traveler (Sue Bissey) on January 6 were reported to the FBI by Facebook friends, who took screen shots to turn in with their complaining statements. 

In the “Statement of Offense in Support of Guilty Plea” that I’m asking you to read, take note in paragraph 11 to how the government has flipped Morgan-Lloyd into being a witness on their behalf:

11.  (final sentence only here)  On Facebook, Bissey posted a picture of protestors, including two individuals in military battle dress, on the Capitol grounds.” (emphasis added)

When you turn back into the “Statement of Facts,” alleged by the FBI on February 23 against Morgan-Lloyd, you find on page 4, the referenced Facebook screenshot of two individuals dressed in camouflage. 

Section D of my new book lays out how and why the top brass of the Armed Services are treating the subject of “extremists” and the military, including the stand down, the Working Group, and the training now underway.  I also set forth the early, credible estimates for the percentage of person at the Capitol alleged to be Veterans. 

It’s not unreasonable to consider whether Morgan-Lloyd was selected as early as March 19 to be presented with a plea deal in order to convert her into the enabling witness for the admission of those two photographs.

As I said, we’ll come back to this topic again.  Paul Allard Hodgkins was yesterday’s plea deal subject.  As those papers and other plea deal packets start uploading, let’s look for those similarities and differences. 

 I have a feeling that “surplusage” is going to be the verbiage du jour.