Robert Morris indicted, arrest warrant issued, thanks to old Sooner State law
Justice may come later, but still arrive, thanks to a pre-statehood law, and criminal court precedent--and one AG who cares for victims of abuse
Part 1 of 2
If anyone would have told Dr. Dénouement that 2025 Oklahoma would be more up to date than Kansas City (name that tune), then this former Oklahoman would have laughed. But that’s the funny part about untying knots—sometimes the smartest solutions are found in the most unlikely places. While “woke” obsessed Ryan Walters works to dismantle education and use taxpayer money to buy Trump Bibles for public schools, Attorney General Gentner Drummond works to do the job the people of the Sooner State tasked him to do—pursue justice.
Indeed, folks, even the New York Times finally had some good news to report on this accused predator.
That was Wednesday. By Thursday, however, an arrest warrant had been issued—which included the pastor’s passport. And have a look at the judge’s first name—just a fun little coincidence.
Ironically. AG Drummond explained in the Dallas Morning News Thursday, that a law, which could be responsible for allowing Morris to stand trial and ultimately be found guilty of these crimes, is an old law that established to protect the state—pre-statehood—when the Native American land saw criminals come from surrounding states, commit crimes, and evade punishment by returning home—to surrounding areas—like Texas.
Drummond said:
“When Oklahoma was formulating its constitution and statutory framework, we were ‘no man’s land,’ we were Indian territory.”
He added that the state then suspended the statute of limitations on those who lived outside the area so they were not able to escape criminal consequences. This law is still on the books. Oklahoma Statutes, Criminal Procedures Title 22-§153:
If when the offense is committed the defendant be out of the state, the prosecution may be commenced within the term herein limited after his coming within the state, and no time during which the defendant is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within the state, is part of the limitation. R.L.1910, § 5626.
As written, it may not seem that conclusive, but legal precedent begs to differ. The law itself has an interesting history. An NBC News story further elaborated on Drummond’s comments:
The prosecution turns on what Drummond called an “extraordinarily unusual” application of “a very old statute” that is most often used when prosecuting cold cases. More than a century ago, when outlaw cowboys roved the Old West committing crimes as they moved between states, Drummond said Oklahoma and other frontier states implemented a provision that essentially pauses — or tolls — the statute of limitations when someone commits a crime and then flees the state.
Morris was a traveling evangelist who preached to crowds at churches and revivals across the Southwest when he entered Clemishire’s life in the early 1980s. Like the out-of-state marauders who terrorized Oklahoma towns in the early 1900s, Morris did not reside in Oklahoma, so Drummond said his office determined that the statute of limitations did not apply.
“Certainly that will be challenged in a court of law, and we are prepared to meet that challenge,” Drummond said. “I anticipate that there will be, ultimately, case law made on this case.”
And an OU law professor, Tracy Pearl told NBC News that Drummond’s interpretation seemed to be “supported by case law.”
Pearl is the expert, and Dr. Dénouement certainly is not. However, for what it’s worth, Dr. Dénouement concurs with counsel. Drummond told the Dallas paper:
“I don’t know that that’s ever been challenged in court, and I anticipate that Mr. Morris and his team of lawyers will challenge that.”
The AG cannot be faulted for taking one step at a time. His job is to do just that. Cases like these are fragile enough. In fact, the law seemingly has been challenged in courts in OK, and Drummond, Clemishire, and every victim of a terrible crime who thinks the statute is up may want to read on, and call OK the Sooner State not because of its affinity to its football but for its ability to bring justice sooner.
OU’s Pearl said:
“[F]rom a policy perspective, I think these sorts of provisions that toll the statute of limitations when somebody is located out of state makes sense. We don’t want to disadvantage the state or prosecutors in cases in which they may have a really limited ability to find the defendant and then extradite them back to the state.”
The provision in the law may have initially been “frontier law” based on cowboy crimes, or oppression of Native Americans, neither of which has changed much if you have spent any degree of time in Oklahoma.
That irony shouldn’t escape then-traveling evangelist, now credibly accused pedophile, Morris who came to Oklahoma, allegedly representing God to Cindy Clemishire (who has chosen to use her name from the star; otherwise, Searching for Truth would not print the name of a victim of sexual assault), who was 12 when she says Morris began his predatory serial molestation, but playing god—and that version definitely is “little g” god, as no real God of the Bible he claimed to represent would do what this indictment shows. Now what about that little-known law?
Case law circa 1948, before we were born
That’s right, Drummond knows the law well as OK AG, but perhaps has not yet gone back to 1948 to parse all the cases, understandably. But precedent is on his side in the criminal courts as well. Dr. Dénouement, therefore, would like to offer the good counselor Osborn v. State in the OK Criminal Court of Appeals, 1948. Here we have an appeal where a man admitted to killing someone; however, he uses the statute of limitations to claim he should go free anyway (sound familiar?) Take a moment to digest this next part because it matters, especially for any crime committed in the state of Oklahoma by a non-Oklahoman. This text is from the appeals court ruling:
Counsel for the defendant next insist that the verdict finding defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree cannot be sustained for the reason that the statute of limitations had run against any crime except murder, three years having elapsed since the commission of the offense of manslaughter and there being no evidence on the part of the state that tolled the statute of limitations. 22 O. S. 1941 §§ 151, 152 and 153.
The general rule seems to be that where one is charged with an offense which is not barred by limitation, but is convicted of a lesser included offense which is so barred, that he is entitled to a discharge. 22 C. J. S.2 Criminal Law, § 225.
However, the authorities are not all in accord on this rule and this court has not yet had occasion to decide this point. In order to dispose of this contention of defendant, it is unnecessary to decide this question. That question will be decided when a record is before us which affirmatively shows that the included or lesser offense than the one charged is barred by the statute of limitations.
It is provided by statute:
"If when the offense is committed the defendant be out of the State, the prosecution may be commenced within the term herein limited after his coming within the state, and no time during which the defendant is not an inhabitant of or usually resident within the State, is part of the limitation. R. L. 1910, § 5626." 22 O. S. 1941 § 153.
The above section summarizes the rule of law which Drummond used to ask for an indictment for Morris. Essentially, since he didn’t live in OK, the statute doesn’t toll—count time—unless he moved there. Unlike old laws that say you can’t hitch your horse to the church post after 6 p.m., this one remains relevant because bad people do bad things that ruin good people’s lives. (In Oklahoma, however, some people do actually ride horses through town and hitch them to church posts while they grab a bite… but no one I know ever got arrested for that one!)
Let’s continue with Osborn’s appeal to not being punished because he killed that due a whole lotta years back. On page 269, the appellate court says (my emphasis in bold):
In construing and applying this section of the statute, this court has consistently held that the burden is not upon the state to show by the evidence that the defendant was not an inhabitant or usually resident within the state for a period of time which would toll the statute of limitations. Coleman v. Territory, 5 Okla. 201, 47 P. 1079; Rea v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 281, 105 P. 386, 106 P. 982; Davenport v. State, 20 Okla. Cr. 253, 202 P. 18; Crain v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 45, 104 P.2d 450.
This is key to Oklahoma’s prosecution. Morris has to prove the statute is up, and that is going to be exceedingly difficult for a public figure with a public trail.
In Coleman v. Territory, supra, Justice Tarsney of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma Territory cited and discussed all of the leading American cases and text books on this subject of limitation, and came to the conclusion as stated in his opinion [5 Okla. 201, 47 P. 1081] :
"In this case the question is clearly presented whether, when the prosecution has established the commission of the offense by the accused, it was also its duty to establish by evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, its right to have the accused punished for such offense, by facts showing that he was not entitled to the benefits of the statute of limitation, or was it the duty of the defendant to establish by facts, to the satisfaction of the jury, his right to exemption from punishment by virtue of that statute? When the defense consists, not in confession and avoidance, but in the traverse of some essential fact relied on by the prosecution, and where such fact is an essential element of the offense, the burden of proof is unquestionably upon the prosecution, and it must establish such fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining upon which party lies the burden of proof and the degree of proof, we think a clear distinction may be drawn between cases where the defense traverses the material elements of the crime, and those which are exculpatory, or in the nature of confession and avoidance, and keeping clearly in mind this distinction will aid materially in construing apparently, conflicting authorities. * * * The defense of the statute of limitations traverses no element (Page 270) of the crime charged. It is essentially an extrinsic defense. It does not put in issue either the guilt of the defendant, or the existence of any of the essential elements constituting his guilt of the offense charged. He simply asserts that by virtue of an extrinsic condition, not relating to the commission of the offense, but recognizing its commission, namely, a statute of repose or limitation, he is not now subject to punishment for the crime which he admits having committed. We can see no reason why the rule relating to the defense of license, authorization by the state, autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, pardon, provocation, or compulsion should not be the rule as to this defense. In fact, we think the rule applies with more reason and justice to this defense than to the others. It is not inequitable, oppressive, or substantially prejudicial to the safeguards which should surround the defense of one accused of crime, that if his defense does not deny the commission of the acts charged, or traverse any of the material elements of the offense, but is based upon facts wholly extrinsic, and peculiarly within his knowledge, and more readily susceptible to proof by him than by the prosecution, he should be held to establish such defense to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury. In the case at bar, as shown by this record, the prosecution by the exercise of reasonable diligence, were not able to establish or prove that the defendant had a fixed, definite, habitation or residence within the territory. If such fact existed,-if the defendant did, in fact, during the disputed time, have a fixed, permanent residence within the territory,-that fact was peculiarly within his knowledge, and would be easily susceptible of proof by him; and we think it would be a sound rule only which would require him to make such proof."
In Rea v. State, supra [3 Okla. Cr. 281, 105 P. 386], this court held:
"The statute of limitations does not negative a single element of the crime with which a defendant may be charged. It does not put in issue the guilt of the defendant. It therefore is not necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense committed is not barred by the statute of limitations." (pp. 270-271)
In Davenport v. State, supra, this court stated [20 Okla. Cr. 253, 202 P. 25]:
"It is well settled that, where the statute of limitations is relied upon for a defense in a criminal action, the burden is upon the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any matter showing that the statute of limitations is not tolled."
(This case is lengthy and cites several cases; it takes some time to digest, but it’s worth a read in order to grasp what Morris may face. The burden of proof lies on his legal team, which ought to be difficult since he made sure he was in the spotlight.)
Okay, okay, enough legal citations, you say? That was so old! Yeah, it was. But that’s kind of how legal precedence works. It would be different if perhaps 1948 were the last time it was relevant. But it wasn’t. In fact, here’s a case from 2016, Tollett v. State, in which a number of cases, including Osborn v. State, are cited as the appellant also loses his case for thinking he did not have the burden of proof regarding the statute of limitations and expected the court to make the prosecution do the defense’s job. Whoopsie! That was expensive for this Stephens County (not a wealthy county) man. (One must wonder exactly why his attorney tried this defense in 2015-2016, when there was so much precedence proving otherwise… perhaps Mr. Tollett could have sued for malpractice?) Have a look at this excerpt (my emphasis in bold):
Interpreting § 153, Oklahoma courts have held since before statehood that the defendant bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the statute of limitations is not tolled. Traxler v. State , 1952 OK CR 162, 96 Okla.Crim. 231, 237, 251 P.2d 815, 822 ; Ex parte Washington , 1950 OK CR 130, 92 Okla.Crim. 337, 342, 223 P.2d 552, 555 ; Osborn v. State , 1948 OK CR 24, 86 Okla.Crim. 259, 270, 194 P.2d 176, 182 ; Davenport v. State , 1921 OK CR 1, 20 Okla.Crim. 253, 202 P. 18, 25 ; Coleman v. Territory , 1897 OK 15, 5 Okla. 201, 47 P. 1079, 1083.
The Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma in Coleman reasoned:
It is not inequitable, oppressive, or substantially prejudicial to the safeguards which should surround the defense of one accused of crime, that if his defense does not deny the commission of the acts charged, or traverse any of the material elements of the offense, but is based upon facts wholly extrinsic, and peculiarly within his knowledge, and more readily susceptible to proof by him than by the prosecution, he should be held to establish such defense.... In the case at bar, as shown by this record, the prosecution, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, were not able to establish or prove that the defendant had a fixed, definite, habitation or residence within the territory. If such fact existed,—if the defendant did, in fact, during the disputed time, have a fixed, permanent residence within the territory,—that fact was peculiarly within his knowledge , and could be easily susceptible of proof by him ; and we think it would be a sound rule only which would require him to make such proof. -Coleman , 1897 OK 15, ¶¶ 38–39, 5 Okla. 201, 47 P. at 1083 (italics emphasis existed in the original case).
The case continues by saying that “the trial court in the present case properly placed the burden of proof upon Appellant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the statute of limitations had not tolled. Appellant has failed to demonstrate error, plain or otherwise, occurred with regard to this issue.” Tollett v. State, 387 P.3d 915, 917-18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016)
The decision was upheld—unanimously.
The Grave implications for Morris
Clearly, as one who has friends who have suffered child sexual abuse in some of these public cases—including a dear one I cherish—to only knowing others by name, watching this play out feels more personal. Having Morris and his “Blessed Life” teaching shoved down my throat for years and years in both Texas and Oklahoma, always seeming more a manipulative teaching on “how to get rich” instead of genuine biblical principles, was bad enough, but I never liked him anyway.
My like or dislike is not relevant to anyone’s guilt or innocence, however. But Morris has a mouth on him that may be bigger than most (even Dr. Dénouement’s!), and that certainly indicts him here (no pun intended). You see, when he publicly said he had any sort of “relationship” (which is a despicable utterance when a man is 21 and a child is 12) with a “young lady” (12! She was 12!) means there was an admission of some sort. Further, there was the recorded phone call (both OK and TX are one-party consent states), and other forms of admission, but more on how Morris has hurt his own defense later.1
Considering that Morris has spoken out about this and admitted some level of physical contact, the odds are poor that he will emerge unscathed (oh, darn!)—even if 10 percent of those millions go toward his legal defense (to be clear, I am not suggesting that. I am certain he made a fortune off his books, which likely followed the great Christian integrity stamp of ghostwriting, and other ventures. Then again, he also just managed to get a judge to dismiss a fraud suit this week. Fortunately it was dismissed without prejudice, so that saga may not be over either. In that suit, The Houston Chronicle reports, “Morris and other Gateway leaders allegedly told the congregation that 15 percent of all tithed dollars would be spent on foreign global missions and on Jewish ministry partners.” (There’s the magical incantation to make people give, right, Robbie?)
However Morris plans to pay for his defense, he will need lots of money because the laws in Oklahoma are on Clemishire’s side. Drummond, by the way, is also a Republican, but he’s the kind that didn’t make many of us rush to the Comanche County Courthouse a decade ago and change our voter registration—and fast.
For Morris, whose story is making international headlines because of his advising to President Trump’s “faith” circle, as well as his work with fellow Christian nationalist Gov. Greg Abbott in Texas, impunity is not the children’s bread in the land of red dirt. Criminal law in Oklahoma sets a clear precedent: Morris and his legal eagles have the burden of proof that 43 years after Clemishire’s first reported abuse the toll had not begun ticking on his statute. Mr. Blessed Life is going to court, it seems.
The indictment: five sickening stories of abuse
The indictment, accessible here, lists five separate charges of lewd or indecent acts to a child, Title 21 O.S. § 1123, a felony. There are five charges because the dates and places are different, and in some of them Clemishire’s age is as well; this is due to the serial nature of the accusations. If you can stomach it, you should read it. Below I copy the first charge, the one from Christmas Day 1982 when Clemishire was 12. Please skip this section, broken up by the lines, if this is something that would be traumatizing. Some of the critics and defenders of these men do not grasp that this sort of trauma doesn’t vanish because years pass.
“On or about December 25, 1982, the crime of LEWD OR INDECENT ACTS TO A CHILD was feloniously committed in Osage County, State of Oklahoma, by ROBERT PRESTON MORRIS who did intentionally and designedly touch or feel with his hand the body or private parts, including the breasts and vaginal area, of C.C. (D.O.B. 01/25/1970), who was twelve (12) years old at that time, in a lewd or lascivious manner, contrary to the provisions of Section 1123 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes and against the peace and dignity of the State of Oklahoma.”- Count 1 of 5
Believe it or not, that is the “tamest” of the five descriptions, some of which include what Morris is alleged to have done in a car, which include his “member.” It astounds Dr. Dénouement that these men who “admit to moral failure but not to sexual intercourse” (a paraphrase of what Morris, Bickle, and others have said in the past year or two), would, and have, officially said to any woman, man, or couple, who came to the church for counsel that the very acts of which they are accused would absolutely be considered sexual intercourse and adultery. But heck, what does ol’ Dr. Dénouement know? She just paid attention to the pastors and cross-checked stuff in the Bible they all claimed to believe. Silly Dr. D!
Past Pastor Robert Morris, it is time for your bell to toll.
- Coming up next (since this evolved quickly!) -
Unless you’ve been in a cave regarding IHOPKC, you also know that Mike Bickle, the organization’s founder, accused sexual abuser of a minimum of 17 women—according to a deeply deficient report that cost a great deal of money, and is still being revised and debated—faces similar accusations. One can only hope he went to Oklahoma for one of his purported jaunts…
Meanwhile, we will take a look at a common thread between the two men, which is disturbing many advocates, as well as an adjacent problem which may only strengthen Clemishire’s case, even tangentially.
-30-
Shockingly, this was going to be a simple write up with an entirely different headline and point. That post will come in the next day or so as I have been forced to split this into two posts because there’s actually that much information. What in the world, people!? After that I will get to the LaGuardia background I promised.
“But as for the cowards and unbelieving and abominable [who are devoid of character and personal integrity and practice or tolerate immorality], and murderers, and sorcerers [with intoxicating drugs], and idolaters and occultists [who practice and teach false religions], and all the liars [who knowingly deceive and twist truth], their part will be in the lake that blazes with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Revelation 21:8