Sheriff Morgan Endangers Verdict in Billings Case

I am a knightSir David’s narcissism is going to be his undoing in the “case of a lifetime”. Sir David’s greeting of the GRAND JURY on August 11th, 2009 (and prior indictment on July 31st, 2009), was wholly unconstitutional. This has been brought up in another case. Daniel Levitan vs. David Morgan, a federal case in 2012 that is still under litigation. Mr. Levitan claims biasing the jury was the only way Sir David had of obtaining an indictment. This has not been decided due to pro se errors by the defendant, Levitan, currently an inmate in Century prison. Procedural errors and Sir David’s being afraid of being deposed in this case have drawn this case out indefinitely. But make no mistake the question of legality  of jury tampering has not been dismissed.

In the Patrick Gonzalez Jr. case, the following is just 1 claim asserted in the Motion for Postconviction Relief ie Motion to Vacate due to State’s Violations of Due Process. Judge Nickolas Geeker is still the judge but the motion to get his ass out of that seat is pending in the Florida Supreme Court. That is another story entirely.

However, read the claim as to the many pleas by federal judges and the head of the public defenders office. They make the case for Gonzalez Jr. The appearance of impropriety is ridiculous. A defense attorney would not be allowed to the things Morgan did nor would a paralegal or even the family of the victims or accused. Yet Morgan continues to this day…

COUNSEL FOR MR. GONZALEZ WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE GRAND JURY INDICTMENT ON THE GROUNDS THAT ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF DAVID MORGAN ENGAGED IN OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT BY IMPROPERLY INFLUENCING MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY WHO ISSUED THE INDICTMENT AGAINST MR. GONZALEZ.

On March 17, 2011 United States District Court Judges M.Casey Rodgers, Roger Vinson, and Lacey Collier wrote a letter to Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan as follows:

Our court utilizes the parking area at the corner of Gregory and Alcaniz Streets for the parking and transport of potential jurors to the courthouse for jury selection via the city trolley service. Recently, when a prospective juror appeared for service in our court with your business card, we became aware of your practice of regularly greeting and interacting with the prospective jurors as they await the trolley.

 Your interaction with these prospective jurors raise legitimate concerns about the court’s ability to seat fair and impartial jurors, especially when considering that the majority of those selected will serve on criminal juries. The potential for bias created by a senior elected public law enforcement official greeting prospective jurors and handing out business cards to them just prior to jury selection is undeniable, as is the disruption to out local criminal justice system that would result if the court were unable to seat fair and impartial juries to hear these trials. Even if no actual bias results, the court nonetheless is concerned that your practice at a minimum gives the appearance of bias, which in our view seriously undermines the public’s confidence in the fair administration of justice.

As a result of these concerns and in an effort to ensure the fair and equal administration of justice to all who appear in federal court, we must request that you refrain from any further contact with our court’s prospective jurors. We make this request in the hope we are not put in the very difficult position of being unable to seat juries in criminal cases. Your prompt response to this matter is appreciated.

On March 17, 2011 Sheriff Morgan responded by letter to the Federal District Court Judges tersely defying their request stating: 

I am in receipt of your correspondence dated March 3,2011. Since no one has extended the courtesy of a call, or request, for what exactly (as sheriff) I am communicating to prospective jurors I will begin with that; “Good morning, I’m Sheriff David Morgan, I
attempt to get down here on as many Monday’s as possible to thank you for answering the jury summons. I know this is a disruption of your business or personal
day, but you are an integral part of the judicial process. Thank you for your service.” This is the extent of my alleged “interaction”. I continue this practice of
putting a complimentary face on law enforcement for the antithesis of a potential juror failing to respond (voluntarily) to a jury summons is getting to see the
“sheriff” by virtue of an arrest warrant. 

The assertion that only recently the court has become aware of my practice of greeting prospective jurors is inconceivable. I have been engaged in this activity since January of 2007, first as a candidate and continuing as sheriff. Additionally, approximately four months ago Judge Vinson communicated his knowledge of this practice through local attorney Roy Kinsey, to my Chief Deputy Larry Aiken, who communicated with me. More recently, Judge Vinson sent an email again to Mr. Kinsey who then called Escambia County Sheriff’s Office staff attorney, Commander Darlene Dickey, who communicated this call to me. Additionally, my practice of greeting jurors has been covered extensively by the local media (Independent News and PNJ) both as a candidate and as an elected official. This activity is conducted in the open, on public property.

On December 2, 2010, Sheriff Morgan signed an affidavit concerning his jury greeting activities swearing under oath as follows:

In Escambia County, jury selection day is normally Monday or Tuesday in the event that Monday is a holiday. Prior to my election as sheriff I regularly went to the juror parking area, located near the Civic Center, Pennsacola, Florida, on each jury selection day. The juror parking area is where prospective jurors for Escambia County Circuit Court and County Court are directed to park their vehicles and be transported by bus
to the Escambia County Courthouse. At the juror parking area my practice was to introduce myself to as many potential jurors as possible, thank them for
appearing to serve as a juror, and provide them with my business card.

I have routinely continued this practice after my installation as Sheriff. Although I do not do so for every jury selection day, I continue the practice on most jury
selection days. I did not do so on October 25, 2010, which was the jury selection day for Gonzalez, accused of the Billings murders. . . .

On March 24, 2011 Sheriff Morgan wrote a letter to State Attorney Bill Eddins stating:

There is no honor in this acquiescence. Yet what can only be defined as an impending media circus must be avoided. I cannot and will not be a player to a diminution or denigration of the judicial process. This is evidenced by the most recent filings by local defense attorneys asking that as Sheriff and Executive Officer of the Court, I stay away from prospective jurors in an upcoming Billings Trial. The Criminal Defense Bar and the Public Defender’s Office are well aware that I had voluntarily agreed to suspend these greetings during these selections because I was the “public face” of these cases. I will not be a party to this. Furthermore, it has been suggested by members of the local media that I be photographed greeting prospective jurors. This is also something I will not be a party to, as a public official, it would be unavoidable. Therefore, I am ceasing the greetings of prospective jurors effective immediately.

On September 17, 2010, J. Christopher Klotz the President of the Society of the Criminal Defense Bar of Escambia County, wrote a letter to Circuit Court Judge Terry Terrell concerning Sheriff Morgan and his jury greeting and stated:

I am writing on behalf of the Society of the Criminal Defense bar, the local chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Having discussed the recent conduct of the Escambia County Sheriff, our Board of Directors has authorized me to
reach out to you on behalf of our association. We recently became aware that Sheriff Morgan is initiating some type of one on one contact with prospective jurors as they are assembling at the Pensacola Coliseum and again at the Escambia Courthouse. As an organization, we agree with the Office of the Public Defender that contact of this nature has a great potential for harmful impact on citizens on trial in Escambia County. Respectfully, we are requesting that you exercise your authority under
Florida Law to curb the inappropriate contact of the Sheriff with prospective jurors.

The above stated letters to, from, and about Sheriff Morgan’s jury greeting practices, establish that (1) From the time Sheriff Morgan was sworn in as Sheriff of Escambia County he has routinely and consistently greeted jurors in the jury assembly parking lot and giving them his business card for the express purpose of putting a “complimentary face” on law enforcement; (2) Sheriff Morgan admitted the impropriety of greeting jurors on any “Billings” case as he was the “face of the investigation;” (3) Sheriff Morgan claims he did not greet the jurors on October 25, 2010, which was when the jury was
selected on the Gonzalez case.

Mr. Gonzalez asserts that if it is improper for Sheriff Morgan to meet with prospective jurors on any Billings case because he was the “face of the investigation,” it is equally improper for him to meet with prospective members of the Grand Jury charged with the decision of whether there was sufficient evidence to charge him with first degree murder. This is especially so as to the Gonzalez Grand Jury because Sheriff Morgan was far beyond just the “face ” of the investigation, but rather had appeared on local and national television, and, as was established in Claim One of this motion, referred to Mr. Gonzalez as an inveterate liar, a psychopath, and a lying con man. The Grand Jury in this case issued the indictment against Mr. Gonzalez on August 11, 2009. It is the undersigned counsel’s understanding and belief that the potential Grand Jurors arrive in the same general assembly parking lot where Sheriff Morgan engaged in his jury greeting and  influence activities. Based upon the time frame Sheriff Morgan says he greeted the prospective jurors and when the Grand Jury was convened to issue the indictment, counsel has a good faith belief that Sheriff Morgan greeted some or all of the members of the Grand Jury who indicted Mr. Gonzalez at the jury assembly parking lot, and he did so to put a complimentary face on law enforcement. 

Counsel for Mr. Gonzalez had to have been aware of Sheriff Morgan’s jury  influencing activities, based on the letter from Mr. Klotz, President of the Defense bar, and the admission from Sheriff Morgan that he would not greet any prospective jurors on the Billing’s case, and from the news reports Sheriff Morgan referenced in his letter concerning extensive press coverage of his jury greeting practices. 

Wherefore, counsel for Mr. Gonzalez was ineffective for not challenging the Grand Jury indictment against Mr. Gonzalez due to Sheriff Morgan’s greeting of them at the jury assembly parking lot for the express purpose of putting a complimentary face on law
enforcement. The proper means to challenge the Grand Jury is by motion to dismiss the indictment. Failure of defense counsel to make that motion results in a waiver of any challenge to the Grand Jury. 
In Rudd v. Christian, 310 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1975), the Florida Supreme Court stated:

if a State Attorney, and his assistants should in any way attempt to influence the finding of the Grand Jury, other than presenting evidence and rendering legal advice, any indictment returned may be set aside for improper influence. An overstepping of the State Attorney’s function could constitute an invasion of the function of
the Grand Jury and interfere with their independence. 

Although Sheriff Morgan is not an Assistant State Attorney, he clearly is an arm of and part of the prosecution team, as the lead investigative law enforcement officer in the Gonzalez case and self -professed “face” of the investigation. He may not in any way attempt to influence the Grand Jury. Accordingly, Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss the indictment due to Sheriff Morgan’s greeting of some or all of the Grand Jurors with the express purpose of influencing them to have a positive view of law enforcement.

In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the Court held that counsel has a “duty to bring such skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process.” Strickland requires a defendant to plead and prove (1) unreasonable attorney
performance, and (2) prejudice. The prejudice prong is met if “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694. See also Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 130 S.Ct. 447 (2009) (explaining that the Court does not require proof “‘that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome’ of his penalty proceeding, but rather that he establish ‘a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in [that] outcome.’” 558 U.S. at 44, 130 S.Ct. at 45556 (2009), quoting Strickland).

Prejudice under Strickland is established for this claim because the legal debacle of the elected Sheriff of Escambia County improperly influencing members of the Grand Jury undermines confidence in the entire trial proceedings and the proper administration of justice due to indictment procedure compromised by a governmental official.

So the only SOLID case, if you would call it that, that Sir David has as his “claim to fame”–as does Bill Eddins, is unconstitutional. That isn’t even to mention that the composition of the Grand Jury room was violated by David Rimmer by allowing Barry Brook and/or Corey Aittama inside the jury room instead of the statutorily required second attorney. So while Morgan basks in the glow for now, come election day, his undoing awaits…Damn I love Karma!

1936980_1036453236413987_8255047991429179075_n.jpg

February 2016 -Morgan still greets jurors

 

A Call to Action for Escambia County

Quote from a press conference 3/10/16 after a sting in Brownsville:

“You don’t have a law enforcement problem here you you’ve got a societal issue.”

I was absolutely floored that Sir David continues to blame the community for the crime problems. In a raid of Brownsville, they arrested 12 people who had been arrested some 49 times collectively. “We are doing our jobs by arresting them. This is a community problem.”

There are so many things wrong with that thought process. First of all, arresting criminals does not deter crime. The idea is to stop the crime prior to that arrest. If patrols are out interacting with the citizens of a county in a combined effort, crime is lower.  If you are proactive in a community, you don’t have to be reactive as this Sheriff is. Has he not read anything on criminal justice?  When you see an area turned around from crime-ridden to crime-free, they universally use specific components to succeed.  As I mentioned, establish a law enforcement presence through patrolling AND working with the community. If the community does not work with police, neither will be successful. Get the deputies out in the area meeting and interacting the community.

Secondly, directed patrol in “hot spots” at “hot times”. This prevents the crime prior to arrest. It makes it harder to be a criminal if the police are constantly where they do business. The presence of this uniformly in the county results in a safer county.

Thirdly, lead from the top. A fish rots from the head down. Without strong leadership, you have ineffective policing. Morgan has shown he does not have a clue as to how to fix this mess he created. His second in command, Chief Deputy Haines, has no practical investigative or policing knowledge. He spends his time policing social media. With these two role models, there is no clear directive. It’s like kids with two parents who aren’t around, what kind of stability or discipline can the child draw on, when they never see it in practice?

Lastly, funding actual activities within the community to detour crime is supposed to be what the LET (Law Enforcement Trust) Fund is geared toward specifically.  News Flash! The people Sir David is investing in are not doing anything to detour crime. Maybe he needs to worry more about doing his job and less with getting campaign and/or private money in his pocket. Fund after school programs, put more money into measures for neighborhood watch programs, DARE, MADD etc. But ultimately putting more money into deputies in problematic communities on a consistent basis—not just for a “sting”—will be the key to lowering crime.

These are common sense things. The head of the Sheriff’s office has been decomposing since 2009 and it’s working its way down in the form of loss of massive amounts of deputies. Some were bad apples but most were good guys who couldn’t lower themselves to the incompetence. One of the first moves is to get Haines off his ass and in the community.  He needs to know the people in the problem areas. His face should be out there with the men under him

Ultimately, the decay of society as Morgan claims is an anathema for all of us. Every state and county has the problems. Escambia is not unique. The people there aren’t bad as Morgan’s claiming. He’s outright saying YOU, THE RESIDING CITIZEN, ARE THE PROBLEM.  You didn’t raise your kids right. You didn’t do everything you could to make the community safe. That is a cop out. Society has changed, yes, but you know what? The safest county in Florida is doing something to counteract that by forward thinking law enforcement. Proactive policing, having a presence in each community. The deputies should be acquainting themselves to the people in their area. You should see them periodically through your neighborhood. You should know which deputy is in your area.

The residents can’t fix the crime; it’s on Sir David to provide a following of proactive deputies who know their jobs and do it. GET OUT OF THE CARS! Don’t wait for a crime to happen put someone in the “hot spots” patrolling. In turn that “hot spot” will move and you put people in the new location, eventually pushing outside this county. That is law enforcement. Not waiting for a robbery or murder and arresting people over and over.

To Sir David: Stop the crime before it happens. That’s what you get paid handsomely to do.  When you say it is not your problem, you are disrespecting every person breathing air in the county. You are pushing the problem onto the citizens rather than accepting the responsibility of your oath of office. Since you don’t seem to understand that, you need to get the f**k out of the seat.

The National Institute of Justice, under the Dept. of Justice says this:

Basic principles of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) include target hardening (controlling access to neighborhoods and buildings and conducting surveillance on specific areas to reduce opportunities for crime to occur) and territorial reinforcement (increasing the sense of security in settings where people live and work through activities that encourage informal control of the environment). Most community policing models include the decentralization of police services, the collaboration of police departments with other city agencies (such as parks or utility departments) to resolve problems, and regular police-citizen dialog about perceived problems

Police can:

  • Conduct security surveys for residents and provide security improvements such as adequate lighting and locks.
  • Conduct park patrols and patrols of other public spaces to eliminate crime and drug use.
  • Use their substations to inform residents of high-risk locations in the neighborhood.
  • Work with urban planners and architects to review the designs and plans in order to enhance community security.
  • Prepare educational materials for building owners and managers to deal with problem tenants and enhance the livability and security of rental units. These materials are useful because they address not only the manner in which the physical environment is designed but also how the environment can be managed more effectively to enhance public safety.
  • Control traffic flow to reduce the use of streets by criminals and enhance neighborhood cohesion and resident interaction. Streets can be closed or traffic diverted to create residential enclaves that give residents greater control of their living environment.

The development of these initiatives affects various factors such as the level of communication and cooperation among police, city staff, and residents; the type, amount, and use of community education and orientation programs; and the methods by which crime prevention programs are described, measured, and evaluated. Currently, these factors apply more to law enforcement agencies because modifying a community policing model may require changes of significant magnitude.

While the Pensacola Opera may be entertaining, it does not meet the criteria of crime prevention programs or safe neighborhoods as outlined by statute to be funded by the Sheriff’s office. Nor does NAS. They have an awesome museum but it is not up to snuff for this funding.

Proper funding of deputies and community programs would aid in reducing crime statistics. The cronyism of paying your upper echelon of do-boys while claiming there is no money for raises to deputies is wrong. Buying a ticket to the society elite with law enforcement money that should be going into making the community safer is wrong. Until people see this, nothing will change.

GO TO THE NEXT ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD MEETING. THE COMMISSIONERS, PARTICULARLY LUMON MAY, SIGN OFF ON THESE RIDICULOUS, SELF-SERVING DONATIONS.

Since we cannot fix stupid in the Sheriff, let’s make his money people accountable. They allow him to do this with your money. Want to stop this frivolous spending? Go to the County Commissioners responsible for Morgan…that’s how you cut off his spending of Escambia dollars in return for campaign donations.  You have a voice ESCAMBIA!  Get your voice to the next meeting before it’s too late.

 

947001_10205416751209743_3577799442844994719_n

Sheriff Morgan: Social Security Fraud?

In my analysis of Sir David’s amassing wealth, I decided to check into the fact the man AND his wife collect Social Security Retirement early along with $200K plus income. I recall before my father died, when he collected Social Security, he couldn’t earn more than X amount back in the 1990’s, or his benefits would be reduced and/or eliminated. So I went to the SocialSecurity.gov website, this is what I found:

The Social Security system offers retirement benefits to workers who have paid into the system through payroll or self-employment taxes. Social Security sets the rules and guidelines for beneficiaries, who can begin drawing benefits as early as age 62. if you work while on early retirement, Social Security adjusts the benefit amount.

 Full and Early Retirement Age

Full retirement age depends on your year of birth, and ranges from 65 to 67. The younger you are, the later Social Security sets your full retirement age. The age for early retirement — 62 — is the same for everyone.

Early Retirement Earnings

If you earn wages before full retirement age, Social Security sets an annual dollar limit and then begins to deduct $1 from your benefit for every $2 you earn over the limit. In 2015, the limit was set at $15,720. Social Security pays its benefits monthly, so if you earn $15,720 though the first six months of the year, and then start making $1,000 a month, the retirement benefit in the seventh and following months will be reduced by $500. This continues until you reach the year when you turn full retirement age, at which point Social Security applies new guidelines.

I contacted the Social Security Administration and was directed to their online calculator for benefits, based on birthdate, income and a median Social Security monthly anticipated amount. This is what the form looks like:

When I plug in Morgan’s info into the calculator, this is what comes up:

Based on his taxable income as defined by the IRS, of at least $200K a year, (actual amount in 2014 was $210, 038) neither of them are eligible for Social Security Retirement for that year, but still manage to earn $17,028 in Social Security Retirement—not Social Security Disability Income (SSDI). Sir David is not eligible based on this income until December 2018.

Now Susan Morgan is approximately 64 now and the last 2 full public disclosures made via the Florida Ethics Commission are for 2013 & 2014, making her potentially, eligible for early retirement at 62. Both years Social Security Benefits were paid, 2013- $ 5,592 & 2014- $ 17,028. Also, there are no 1099’s on file at the Ethics Commission for either year (2 for Susan for both years and 1 for Sir David).  Oversight?  Could be but with all the other documents provided why aren’t these simple forms provided for either of them for either years?

There appears to be some impropriety in this. We will let Social Security sort this out.

As one source asked me, ” How much money does one person need?” Especially noting the LACK of charitable contributions on the personal level but gross excesses of donations that are misappropriated through the Law Enforcement Trust fund (which are supposed to reintegrate forfeiture funds back into law enforcement programs) but instead go to every charitable organization including the Pensacola Opera, NAS glorification programs, and specific financially exuberant Southern Protestant churches that in turn provide funds to Sir David’s campaign at a rate comparable to his donations into theirs.  This is essentially money laundering LET Funds into his own campaign, as described by CJ’s Street Report.

What the hell?  Where is the oversight here?

Good Ole Boy System is Alive & Well

Gerald Champagne, Attorney for Escambia County Sheriff’s Office

Hired in 2010 at a rate of $35 per hour.

Then in 2012, Mr. Champagne’s Salary jumped more than the 3% merit raise he received every year.
His prior employment contract was replaced by this.
Since then he’s jumped even more to this.
As of last year, his pay is now: $170,498 per year which based on his contract is roughly $80 per hours at 40 hours a week for 52 weeks.  What was even more telling was the number of people who make over $100K a year at the Sheriff’s office.
Florida OpenGov -- County Payrolls.clipular
Source: FloridaOpenGov.org

Escambia Kids Re-Victimized by State Attorney

sexual predatorThis case has been close to my heart as a mother and a criminologist because I know the psychological damage that occurs when a child is sexually assaulted. Now factor in the fact the kids’ mother put them in a situation to be exploited by law enforcement. What does that tell the kid? Family can’t be trusted to protect them and neither can the justice system. How dare Anne Patterson let Mark Smith get away with this. The man used his little girl to lure teenage girls in his home. He drugged and videotaped them as he raped them. Yet his charges have now been reduced from 3 counts to 1 and it isn’t even sexual battery; it is simple felony battery on a minor. In theory, since he plead not guilty and the video evidence is conveniently no longer available, Mark Smith could walk AND GET HIS BADGE BACK! WTF!!!!!!!

Escambia Clerk of the Circuit Court.clipular (18)

I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked. When I did the Erin Ambrose story, I found pictured of her with her friend the Honorable Judge Frydrychowicz. Of course, the pictures not to be found now but they are both runners in local events. Look for them together as well as the dirty deputies that Ms. Ambrose–excuse me–Mrs. VonAnsbach Young colludes with.

Everyone that reads this and that lives in Escambia County, I sincerely beg you to help the families of the young victims of the ECSO and now the State Attorney’s Office. Every child in Escambia County is now at risk of being exploited, molested, raped and ignored since this son of bitch is going to walk.  That’s not justice. If you ever wanted to help change your community, this is the opportunity for the citizens to take back the community from the good ole’ boys. VOTE MORGAN OUT 2016.  Call the State Attorney’s office…flood their office with calls asking them why they would do such a thing. Call the Sheriff, ask him why he helped a sexual predator go free. DO SOMETHING, I BEG YOU!

traffickingMedium2

Mr. Money, Sir David Morgan

So Sir David gives all this money to special interests in return for campaign contributions, but personally, he supports very little. In being valued at over $1 million last year, he and Susan gave away $4600 in charitable donations. This year, so far, they paid off $92K on their home. Where is all this money and real estate boom coming from? Is there anyone else besides Bill Eddins who is showing this kind of financial growth out of a public servant’s pay??

Charitable gifts

2012- $2380

2013- $3795

2014-$4640

Seriously, I got all over Gene Valentino’s ass about being so caught up in money, but he has a business that he profits from. This is supposed to be something else.

So in comparing Country Boy Bill Eddins net worth from 2013-2015, there is no wealth growth nearly close to Morgan’s. He owns more real estate, yet his net worth doesn’t grow exponentially year over year.  These are apples and apples being compared…WTF??

 

Morgan’s Net Worth

net worth

7 mos after the last disclosure= $188,998.60 or approx $27K a month–DAMN

 

clipular (20).png

* Note: I do realize his wife’s income is included. However, she is a professor at Pensacola State. Her income is far from lucrative. They have a few rental properties but they are low end. There is also $100k/yr in pure pensions for them both. That on top of the $145+k/yr as Sheriff STILL DOESN’T EXPLAIN THIS AMOUNT OF WEALTH. The problematic part is the high flux of the numbers. $27 K a month?  Really??

Body Language Speaks Volumes

This post is merely to get you to see what is plainly in front of you. The science of body language has been researched and perfected to the degree that people get paid to give lawyers, criminologists and law enforcement a glimpse into the unspoken energy within a situation. By unspoken energy, I mean the things that are not seen but are more honest than words. Personal feelings can be censored but unconsciously, the body cannot hide all the “tells”.

For instance, I look at this picture of Sir David, Gov. Scott & Mayor Hayward. Right away, I notice that Scott is leaning toward Hayward and away for Morgan. Morgan’s biggest “tell” is his teeth clinching like we all saw in the town forum/debate where he lost his cool defending himself in the face of evidence of his incompetence. He is expressing it to some degree here, as he leans away from Scott. The other things is the hands in the pockets. You will notice the people on the right in the photo have their hands relaxed and in their pants’ pockets. Morgan has his hands in his jacket pocket, up and in front of him. This is equivalent to crossed arms. It is a posture of protection or defense.

In this picture, the same tilting of heads away from each other and the grimacing Morgan sourly watching Scott speak.

This meeting is clearly not going in Morgan’s favor. How do I know? The evidence is in Morgan leaning forward, attempting to engage with hands in full motion and Scott reclining back away from the conversation with a “Bless his heart” kind of look that says, “I don’t think so, Buckaroo”.

This last one is interesting because in trying to conform by wearing the ball cap, Morgan still fails because in a Navy town where he loves NAS programs enough to give them multiple double digit donations out of the LET Fund designated for law enforcement and crime prevention, he can’t seem to manage to take that into consideration, looking conspicuously out of step with the rest of the crowd. He is also leaning away from Scott with his sourpuss face.