Reverend Jeffrey Stallworth sued the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, Governor Phil Bryant, Attorney General Jim Hood, the states of Mississippi and Maryland, and the current as well as previous governor of Maryland in U.S. District Court Friday for damages for the placement of his name on a sex offender registry, malicious prosecution, defamation, and violation of his constitutional rights.
Reverend Stallworth represents himself in the lawsuit. He stated he began dating a Maryland woman in 2000. He spent the night at her house. He claimed she
later falsely accused him of sexual improprieties for which he was indicted in 2001. However, in March 2002, in an effort to remain free and return to his home state of Mississippi, Plaintiff pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of sexual offense in the fourth degree, for which he received a suspended sentence and probation. Although he only had a misdemeanor on his record and received probation rather than jail time, the State of Maryland instructed the state of Mississippi to treat the plaintiff as a felon even though he was not a felon.
He states the form used by both states did not have a space for misdemeanor convictions but they "wrote it in". Mississippi required him to register as a sex offender when he returned home. The Prince George County District Court (MD) expunged the conviction in 2010. Reverend Stallworth asked the Hinds County Circuit Court to remove him from the sex offender registry. Judge Weill refused to do so despite the District Attorney allegedly agreeing with Reverend Stallworth's petition for removal. . The Mississippi Supreme Court overturned the lower court and ordered the state to remove his name from the registry a year ago. Earlier post with copy of opinion.
The reverend's travails did not end with the ruling. The plaintiff alleges the Mississippi Department of Public Safety "intentionally delayed removing Plaintiff's name from the sex registry." Reverend Stallworth accuses the defendants of conspiring to take his "good name, his reputation, his career and treat him as a felon and sex offender which was published throughout the nation." He also argues the defendants violated his rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments. He also asserts his rights under Section 1983 (42 U.S.C.). He also claims damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, misrepresentation, malicious prosecution, and negligence.
The case was assigned to Judge Henry Wingate and referred to Magistrate Linda Anderson.
18 comments:
Did he serve on the Aiprot Board and was obviously nominated by the Mayor and confirmed by the Jackson City Council?
Nice selection.
Good Grief..
He pled guilty. What did he expect them to do?
10:21 This was a nominee of a previous mayor, Lumumba I think, but yes he was confirmed by the Council.
@ 10:32 - This is not difficult. He pled guilty to a MISDEMEANOR. Mississippi responded as if he was a FELON. That's the equivalent of labeling someone as an armed robber when his crime was actually stealing a piece of bubble gum.
He must be out of money. How anyone can attend services held by this 'man of God' is beyond me.
10:51: True.
What if you were pointing a gun at the person when you stole their bubblegum?
10:51 & KF- while true, it is also the same as labeling someone as an armed robber when his crime was actually breaking into my house and stealing multiple pieces of electronics, but because it cannot be proven that they were worth more than $1000 RSS pleading it down to a misdemeanor. Big difference between your bubble gum analogy and other misdemeanors.
Mississippi responded as a felony because that is what Maryland sent to MS - at least, that is how I read the somewhat jumbled account above.
Yes, he was a Lubumba appointee, but he was confirmed by a Council that included Tony Yarber as a member.
Stallworth will be 90 years old before Wingate resolves this case.
Be it misdemeanor or felony, his behavior certainly sets a good example for his congregation. This guy has been a snake in the grass for many years. Why do people continue to idolize him? If the Methodists got rid of him then he must be pretty bad! Reverend my A*$.
If a sex offender pleads guilty, he has no rights to sue for being on the sex offenders list. What a perv
@12:27 - He does when Mississippi sex offender law says only that those convicted of FELONY sex offenses will be listed. It's part of the sentence - which means that it is also part of the plea agreement. He didn't plead guilty to a FELONY and the punishments for that level of offense. He agreed to a misdemeanor and the punishments appropriate for THAT level offense.
And @ 11:22, if you use a gun to steal bubble gum, you've committed armed robbery...which is a felony, NOT a misdemeanor. Your question is irrelevant.
Suddenly I'm picturing a New Orleans type parade with Kingfish leading a group of OTHER would-be lawyers down Bourbon. So, let me join in.
After reading the 'somewhat jumbled' account above, it seems to me that if the parties to the suit are guilty of anything, it's being slow in getting around to removing his name. And furthermore, what 'good name'? He had already been fired by one humongous church on I-220. His name was mud already.
Some of you miss the point that the MS Supreme Court ruled that his name had to be removed from the registry over a year ago. You might not like Stallworth, but the law is on his side.
They can't bring Stallworth to heel an like it. Pleading to a misdemeanor should result in a misdemeanor punishment. Period. You all want to label him a perv and a snake in the grass, try labeling him a man and lets move forward. The reverend has the right to clear his name just like the rest of you simply because he was falsely accused and the punishment did not fit the crime. Don't roll over and play dead for them Stallworth. You don't have to be sinless to fight for your rights in this country. If that were the case, we would all be screwed.
It was a misdemeanor conviction. The conviction was legally expunged and the Reverend is entitled to the removal of his name from the registry. Expungement should mean what it says.
People still call him a reverend? Another reason to be suspicious of religion.
Post a Comment