Moorhead Takes Issue With Rep. Lee’s Actions In Case Of ATF Agent
Atty. Jeffrey B.C. Moorhead
The letter printed below was written by Atty. Jeffrey B.C. Moorhead in response to a letter by US Rep. Christopher Lee (R-NY) concerning the case of Agent William Clark, an Federal Agent who was involved in a controversial shooting incident on St. Thomas. In September, 2008, Clark shot and killed Marcus Sukow, his neighbor, in the course of the domestic violence dispute involving Sukow and his girlfriend. Clark, who was off duty at the time, was subsequently charged with second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and two counts of using a dangerous weapon. His trial is currently pending in the Virgin Islands courts, scheduled to begin in October.
Controversy swirled immediately around whether the shooting was justified and whether Clark, an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent, had jurisdiction to take his actions and whether he was Constitutionally protected in the Virgin Islands.
Rep. Chris Lee
On June 30, Rep. Chris Lee, (R-NY) announced he is introducing a resolution in the US House of Representatives that categorizes Clark as a “hero” and his upcoming prosecution as “unjust” and in violation of the “Supremacy Clause” of the US Constitution. (letter attached).
Attorney Moorhead’s letter takes issue with Lee’s action. It is reprinted here in its entirety.
July 27, 2010
Dear Congressman Lee:
I was recently made aware of your efforts to introduce a resolution on behalf of William G. Clark – a Special Agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives who is currently scheduled for trial on charges of Murder II on St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. I must admit I find your actions disappointing and disparaging.
As of this writing, I have no idea what promotes your sudden interest in the affairs of the United States Virgin Islands. I see nothing in your relatively brief voting record as Congressman from New York during the past two years that evidence any prior involvement with the United States Virgin Islands until this incident.
I must therefore conclude that your newly found interest in my district is an effort to be responsive to lobbying by the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and others. Your proposed resolution has an almost uncanny resemblance to FOP’s suggested text that was posted on their website for easy downloading by its members. The factual differences that appear in your version seem to make the case brought by the People of the United States Virgin Islands even more base.
With no apparent basis for your conclusions discernable from your proposed resolution, I find your motives for this involvement to be questionable. Whether your effort in this matter is to curry favor with a relatively prominent lobbying group, get in front of what is obviously an issue that will be brought before every member of Congress in the coming weeks, or simply to gain national media attention at the expense of my community I am not certain. What I am certain of, however, is that out of the blue you decided to use your position to interfere in a lawful prosecution of a federal agent of another agency – an agency that is imbued with certain rights and responsibilities that merit your respect. As a duly elected member of Congress you must be fully aware of the limits to every federal agency’s authority in the United States Virgin Islands and you must be seen as one that respects that – even if you don’t like it.
The suggestion made in your proposed resolution that Special Agent Clark will not receive a fair trial in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands is an affront to every person who lives in this territory. As a Native Virgin Islander, a proud graduate of Howard University School of Law and an active member of the Virgin Islands Bar Association, I take personal offense to your suggestion that our legal process is less than fair and our Judges less than professional. The fact that a Superior Court Judge found probable cause to charge Agent Clark for his actions is demonstrative of the importance to which we hold the rule of law.
I am sorry that you, and some of your ambitious colleagues, will find it beneficial to fall victim to this effort to undermine the sanctity of our judicial system and deny the people of St. Thomas a fair trial. For those of us who are professional legal practitioners, only evidence that is found relevant and admissible can be used to form judicial opinion; unfortunately, some of the un sworn testimony that you offer in defense of Special Agent Clark’s actions has yet to be cross examined by a prosecutor, examined by a judge or scrutinized by a jury. Personally, I prefer to try my cases in a court of law than in a court of public opinion. I would encourage Special Agent Clark’s attorneys to do so as well in the future.
Special Agent Clark’s trial is scheduled for October 11, at a time when I will be extremely busy. I am willing, however, to take time out of my schedule if you agree to travel to St. Thomas to observe Special Agent Clark’s trial with me. Perhaps then you will understand that the United States Virgin Islands has a firmly established court system that is recognized and respected by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, one that all of us here in the United States Virgin Islands are proud of.
If your sudden interest in this matter is a serious expression of your interest in the affairs of my district, I suggest we meet after I arrive in Washington, to talk about the serious issues that my community currently faces that require Congressional approval. Specifically, the failure of the government to rebate billions of dollars of federal excise taxes on petroleum products produced on St. Croix that the territory is legitimately entitled to; proper funding for the Fifth Constitutional Convention so that we can educate everyone about the importance of a constitution and move forward with this document, the power of Virgin Islands residents to vote in national elections and equal participation in national health care for Virgin Island residents to name a few. I am certain I speak for everyone in the United States Virgin Islands when I say we would welcome your interest, assistance and vote in matters of importance to our collective future.
I look forward to meeting you soon.
Cordially,
Jeffrey B. C. Moorhead, Esq.
Uh-oh! And where,might I ask,did that take place?
rejoiced? I recall the people of St. Croix being shocked when Bert Bryan killed his son.
Well said letter from Moorehead to the congressman. Ditto
The people did not rejoice. We still don’t know all that occurred and as I recall there are people who still don’t feel Mr. Bryan’s son got justice. We have people in places of high esteem who have committed all kinds of illegal/immoral acts and are still allowed to be in positions of power.
To anon @ 11:22,
If the people were so shocked when Bert killed his son, how come he continued to get re-elected to the Senate long after the fact. Better yet, why wasn’t he charged with the murder? The community are crying for justice when crimes, like the murder committed by that ATF agent, is committed. Yet, most of us sit back quietly while some of our government officials get away with murder, literally and figuratively.
Wasn’t his son charging at him with a machete? Mr. Sukow had a flashlight, didn’t he? The difference in these cases is the concept of “clear and present danger”. Let’s be objective and not just let race be the deciding factor in our judgmental rantings. There must be something substantial in order to draw such flawed conclusions.
Since when does being attacked by someone armed with a flaslight (and I’m not claiming Mr.Sukow was in fact attacking Mr.Clark)constitute ‘clear and
present danger’ upon the life of this grown and trained ATF Agent?
Wanna talk about objectivity?
Exactly crab! Im saying to previous posters that comparing these two cases are ridiculous. The circumstances are completely different. One presented a case of clear and present danger and the case of the flashlight doesn’t. Please don’t misunderstand me.
I pointed out the “difference” in these cases, and not any similarity
Clark just got aquitted…He’s a free man
Its embarrassing how incompetent our AG’s office and Police Department can be. If we don’t fix the problems we have, we will continue to see cases thrown out on a technicality.
A Mag-lite flashlight would be considered a deadly weapon in the hands of anyone other than a drunken friend of the Governor and his wife. One who slews racial slurs I might add! Don’t get caught up, folks!! I have three of those flashlights on hand waiting for the right intruder.
Let’s pass legislation to elect our AG instead of the Governor appointing them. That way we can select someone competent and will represent Virgin Islanders and not the governor. Remember Donastorg?
I wonder if the reason the Asst AG didnt have pictures of Mr Sukow was because of the VI not having a reliabe coroner or because there were none processed by the investigators. Also did the prosecutors and the prior Judges not realize there were no pictures of Mr. Sukow? There are always lingering questions!! There is no way our whole legal system is that incompetent. I smell fish. Does this have to do with Governor Dejongh being called as a witness?
Incompetence is incompetence! Claude Walker, or Mr. Swagger Lee as I call him, did not prove the elements of his case. Tek dat for all aryou who tink dey Yankee dem always know more than we! Please do not call Judge Ross’s ethics into question. I know for a fact he was sitting there waiting for the Defense’s motion. He is always four steps ahead of anyone in his courtroom. And I was so looking forward to see the Gov and his wife testify on behalf of their “tolerant” and “sober” friends. Can you imagine being friends with someone who thinks that you are a jungle bunny? WOW!!!! Low self-esteem, maybe?
We yankee dems can spell better than you. That’s for sure. Everyone knows Judge Ross just got on the case days ago. Did you not read where I said “prior judges”? Also another work for incompetence is dumb.
That is “word for”.
All this hoopla about this case and it’s dismissed.
I am talking about the incompetence on the part of Claude Walker. Please enlighthen me as to what word I mis-spelled. Or maybe you don’t recognize vernacular when you see it? Are you familiar with that word, democracee?
Oh! BTW. What the heck is reliabe?