ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Dec 14 – Phone | details (2020 Dates added)

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

National

VA: Convicted Sex Offender Elected to Virginia Senate

[theohiostar.com – 11/11/19]

One of the many Democrats elected to the Virginia Senate on Tuesday is a convicted sex offender and disbarred lawyer, according to Breitbart.

Joe Morrissey was jailed and lost his license to practice law after being convicted of having sex with his 17-year-old secretary. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor in the ensuing court case and served for only three months in a “work-release term.” He was also forced to resign from his seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, but then ran again in the special election to retake the seat and was re-elected.

Morrissey then went on to marry the girl in 2016, and she gave birth to their first child at 19. They now have three children together. Morrissey is 62.

Read more

 

Join the discussion

  1. G4Change

    This is encouraging! I really hope to see more cases like this.

  2. Steve D

    Joe Morrissey for President!

  3. Bill

    Whoa…awesome!

    What obstacles he must’ve overcame to get that seat! For starters getting voters to see past his convictions and Registrant status…wow!

    It feels like Registrants are being represented even though I don’t know what his beliefs are or what his campaign platform was.

    Either way this is progress and I hope we could use it to ride that tide of change for sanity.

    As for Ron Book and people like him, if they’re reading this, I want them to put their ears to the ground and listen very carefully…

    Because that is the sound of hell freezing over.

  4. Kilroy

    Mr. Morrissey is not required to register as a sex offender.

    Yes, he was convicted of the heinous crime of having a relationship with a 17 year old who is old enough to legally hold employment but under no circumstance old enough to engage in willing sexual relations (absent a marriage certificate – though he is currently married to his “victim”).

    But he is not on the sex offender registry. Big difference. And therefore irrelevant.

    • AJ

      @Kilroy:
      I disagree that it’s irrelevant. While the man may not be a RC, I believe he still will have some appreciation of the stigma and scorn associated with being convicted of a sex offense. He will also probably at least have a perspective that not all people thus convicted are the monsters society says.

      • Kilroy

        @AJ – and I disagree with your disagreement that it is irrelevant.

        Mr. Morrissey may or may not have such a perspective. We don’t know. The future will show if he does anything to help this issue – perhaps because he may have such perspective or for some other reason. Or if he is really coming down hard on the issue in order to show that is distinguishing himself from those “monsters’ who register. Or if he does nothing at all.

        Any of that is pure conjecture and speculation.

        Should he indeed act in a helpful manner due to his perspective and experience I would like a nice Chianti with my Crow. But until such time his conviction is irrelevant in this context. Because he is not required to register.

        • AJ

          @Kilroy:
          “Mr. Morrissey may or may not have such a perspective. We don’t know.”
          —–
          Then how do you justify your previous, absolute statement that it’s irrelevant?

          You’re absolutely entitled to disagree with my opinion. I shared mine in reply to your unequivocal statement of “therefore irrelevant.”

          While you’re free and entitled to disagree with my (and anyone else’s) opinion(s), I would enjoy hearing how you know for fact the irrelevance, especially given your own subsequent equivocations.

        • Kilroy

          @AJ – phew, imagine my relief that you feel I am entitled to my opinion and to disagree with you 🙂

          The operative word here is “is” – present tense. Unless and until this state senator takes any action that is based on his conviction (absent the registration requirement) it is moot. If he does take any action I also do not see how it is a given that it will be beneficial to the cause of this organization. I see no reason for your optimism – I can see it going either way.

          In short, we don’t have a crystal ball and as of today, don’t know what he will or will not do. And the lack of the registration requirement and any pertinent current action makes this…. irrelevant.

    • Bill

      @Kilroy

      Not entirely irrelevant. The media is still labeling him as a sex offender. That’s just as bad.

      Plus he’s a public person and everyone knows where he works and who he lives with.

      He’s just as vulnerable as Registrants.

      But what’s funny about that is that the voters didn’t care.

      • Kilroy

        Pretty much irrelevant. The media is not portraying him as a registered sex offender but a convicted sex offender. That is only the same to those who are not paying attention. I concede that is much of the public, but he is not the only politician with a criminal record and being portrayed as such by the media.

        More often than not it is not the conviction that makes registrants outcasts and lepers, but the registration consequence of the conviction.

        • steve

          “The media is not portraying him as a registered sex offender but a convicted sex offender”

          There is no difference to Joe citizen.

    • Will Allen

      Yeah, married to the “victim”? Really? Then the conviction probably wasn’t very relevant as far as electing him. It might show some people some of the stupidity of big government but that’s about it.

      Because of the Registries, I’m too biased to care much or dream that big government would ever be very sensible, but it does seem like our country needs a hard “age of consent” number. I don’t think any of us believe 50 year olds should be free to have $EX with children.

      Having said that, no person should be able to drive a vehicle on a public road until they are at least as old as the age of consent. And really, I think the driving age ought to be a number of years higher than the age of consent, whatever that age is. Because one of those activities endangers MY family. How about age of consent of 16 and no driving until 21? Totally works for me.

      Maybe big government should get more involved in $EX? Require passing of $EX education classes and exams. Issue Learner’s Permits in high school. Maybe from 16 to 18, there can’t be $EX without a parent or guardian’s permission.

      Big government should definitely be more involved so they can fake “protect” everyone.

      • Kilroy

        “I don’t think any of us believe 50 year olds should be free to have $EX with children.”

        I guess that depends on your definition of “children”….. we should also not let children operate 2-ton machines at break-neck speeds, encourage child labor, recruit child soldiers, allow child brides and expect children to form criminal mens rea – certainly not as adults. Yet here we are.

        I posit that any person old enough to drive, work, enlist in the military, get married and get prosecuted as an adult (or prosecuted at all) is old enough to decide with whom to engage in willing and voluntary sexual conduct. Even 50 year olds.

        • Bill

          @Kilroy

          The public in general does not distinguish the difference between the convicted or the registered. Under their uninitiated eyes they are one and the same.

          Just because Morrissey is not registered doesn’t mean his record won’t be used against him from his opponents, the Republicans or the media.

          Guaranteed that will be thrown at his face everytime Fighting Joe challenges an issue, another politician, or at Trump who has proven to fight dirty at anyone who opposes him.

          And if he pisses off the media they’ll remind the public about his past without hesitation.

          He may not be Registered but his haters will make him feel like one.

        • Kilroy

          This is a decade and a continent apart, but in 2006 over 70% of CA voters directly voted to banish registrants – including those convicted of the exact same conduct as this man – from occupying most of California residential areas. Keep in mind that the text of Proposition 83 included no distinction between felony / misdemeanor, time since conviction or grandfathering provision. Meaning that they were fine with a man like this, given he was required to register, being expelled by law from the home he may have owned for decades.

          Contrast that with over 56% of VA voters voting for this man over the (same party) incumbent to represent them (represent them!!!) in the State legislature.

          I’ll say there is a difference.

  5. ReadyToFight

    If nothing else this is a prime example that the Registry is indeed punishment. This person avoided the Registry and married his “victim” ha….haha….sorry, that one always gets me.
    But yeah….were he to be a Registrant, hell would freeze over before he started a career in Politics…good times 😃

    • Nondescript

      Correct me if I’m wrong but is this the same Joseph D Morrissey that sponsored a bill in the Virginia Senate 2009 called : SB 1811
      Deferred disposition in criminal cases.
      It would have allowed a court to defer and dismiss any criminal case other than severe felonies, violent felonies, OR crimes that require registration on the sex offender registry.

      Seems like he knows how to play the game and follow orders from his masters.

    • Bill

      @Kilroy

      If society is operated based on what is relevant or not relevant then the Registry would not be in existence.

      But that is not the world we’re living in are we?

      I get what you’re saying. And I would like to agree with your assertions.

      But sometimes fighting in this world by only using logic is like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

      So if the assertion that Fighting Joe brings us some sense of hope that he may help the cause is out of emotion, that’s okay.

      Because hope gets us through our dark days. Even if Fighting Joe turns out to be something else for the cause it won’t matter. Because until that day happens, HOPE will keep those embers of optimism going.

      This is a long battle and we need every bit hope we can get to keep us going while we endure this persecution.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.