Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

McCloskeys Plead Guilty to Misdemeanor Charges, Will Surrender Guns

McCloskeys Plead Guilty to Misdemeanor Charges, Will Surrender Guns

“I stood out on the porch with my rifle and made them back up. And that’s what I’d do again. If that’s a crime in Missouri, by God I did it, and I’d do it again.”

Last summer, Mark and Patricia McCloskey defended their St. Louis property when protesters marched down their street in their gated neighborhood.

A grand jury indicted the couple on unlawful use of a weapon and tampering with evidence charges last October.

The McCloskeys were going to stand trial in November, but pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges on Thursday:

Mark McCloskey, 64, will pay a $750 fine after pleading guilty to fourth-degree assault, a Class C misdemeanor. Patricia McCloskey, 62, must pay a $2,000 fine after pleading guilty to second-degree harassment, a Class A misdemeanor. Mark McCloskey could have faced up to 15 days in jail; Patricia McCloskey could have spent up to a year behind bars. Neither will face jail time.

“This particular resolution of these two cases represents my best judgment of an appropriate and fair disposition for the parties involved as well as the public good,” the special prosecutor in the case, former U.S. Attorney Richard G. Callahan, said in a statement.

Mark told the media: “The prosecutor dropped every charge except for alleging that I purposely placed other people in imminent risk of physical injury, right, and I sure as heck did. That’s what the guns were there for and I’d do it again any time the mob approaches me. … In other words, I stood out on the porch with my rifle and made them back up. And that’s what I’d do again. If that’s a crime in Missouri, by God I did it, and I’d do it again.”

The McCloskeys agreed to hand over the weapons they used last summer:

The McCloskeys also agreed to forfeit the weapons they used when they confronted a throng of protesters marching past their Portland Place mansion on June 28, 2020. The McCloskeys emerged from their home and waved guns at the demonstrators. They claimed the protesters were trespassing by entering their gated, private street.

After accepting the McCloskeys’ pleas in court Thursday, Circuit Judge David Mason denied the couple’s request that Mark McCloskey’s rifle be donated for use in charity fundraisers. The McCloskeys’ lawyer Joel Schwartz said the couple would have liked to donate the rifle to the Missouri Historical Society or “for auction to the (St. Louis) Children’s Hospital.”

Patricia claimed the protesters told them “they were going to kill us.”

“They were going to come in there,” she told Hannity in July 2020. “They were going to burn down the house. They were going to be living in our house after I was dead and they were pointing to different rooms and said, ‘That’s going to be my bedroom and that’s going to be the living room and I’m going to be taking a shower in that room.”

Mark announced his Senate run in May with a video and appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Do they surrender only these weapons or any they own? Wasn’t the governor going to pardon the McCloskey’s? Were there any legal consequences for the trespassers?

    Milhouse in reply to Variant. | June 18, 2021 at 10:05 am

    “The McCloskeys also agreed to forfeit the weapons they used“.

    I don’t get it either. (What did he do wrong?)

    This is so weird. This.conviction has to impact his law license as well.

      maxmillion in reply to | June 18, 2021 at 12:05 pm

      Seems to me he never would agreed to this but for a serious fear that he otherwise risked being convicted of more serious charges.

        VetHusbandFather in reply to maxmillion. | June 18, 2021 at 1:18 pm

        I highly doubt it was “fear of more severe charges” that shaped their decision. We are talking $2750 in fines and forfeiting their weapons. That’s a pretty low cost relative to the amount of time it would take to fight these charges in a trial.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to maxmillion. | June 18, 2021 at 1:29 pm

        “Seems to me he never would agreed to this but for a serious fear that he otherwise risked being convicted of more serious charges.”

        Not really. He is an attorney and knows to NEVER EVER go to trial if you can in anyway avoid it. You have no idea what a jury, or a judge for that matter, will do. By going to trial you give up your destiny to the whim of 12 strangers. He could be acquitted on all charges, or convicted on the most ridiculous set of overcharges imaginable, and sit in jail during his uncertain appeal while he is bankrupted by his attorneys.

        But I, too, thought he had been pardoned by the governor.

          henrybowman in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | June 18, 2021 at 1:38 pm

          The governor said he would pardon them if they were convicted. Maybe the governor doesn’t have the same “pre-emptive pardon” power under his constitution that a US President has.

          Their “offense” was “contempt of Soros DA.” Even charging them with evidence tampering was egregious, since the written record clearly shows that the government lab performed the evidence tampering, not the McCloskeys. McCloskey said from day one that wifey’s gun was inert, with its firing pin reversed so he could safely use it as a courtroom prop. The lab wrote that they couldn’t get the gun to fire until they discovered the firing pin was backward, so they “fixed” it.

          Milhouse in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | June 18, 2021 at 6:05 pm

          The governor promised them a pardon if convicted, so as to give them the chance to fight the charges in court.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | June 18, 2021 at 8:46 pm

          My quick read of the powers of the Governor of OK to pardon is that (1) he may only pardon AFTER a conviction, and (2) AFTER sentence is executed (not served, but you have to check first), AND (3) he may only exercise his power to pardon after a favorable recommendation from a five member pardons and parole board.

          Therefore, McCloskey was looking at some days, at least, in jail after conviction at trial with pardon at some point ONLY if the five member board recommended it to the governor, which would take time and is perhaps no sure bet for such a recommendation depending upon the make up of the board.

          Looks to me McCloskey did the best and right thing.

          Milhouse in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | June 20, 2021 at 3:30 am

          Oklahoma?! Why on earth did you look that up?

          So I did look up the Missouri constitution. Article 4 section 7 says: “IV Section 7. Reprieves, commutations and pardons — limitations on power. — The governor shall have power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, after conviction, for all offenses except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper, subject to provisions of law as to the manner of applying for pardons. The power to pardon shall not include the power to parole.”

          So there you have it. Parson could not have pardoned the McCloskeys before conviction, but he could have done it the moment they were convicted, and they would not have suffered any penalty. And I see no reason why he would not have kept his word.

        CorkyAgain in reply to maxmillion. | June 18, 2021 at 2:29 pm

        In today’s political climate that’s not an unreasonable fear.

      They didn’t plead to doing anything wrong. In effect, they agreed to pay a fine and surrender the guns they used since doing the right thing is illegal in Missouri. And they will do it again if they have to.

      He is running for office. Why waste time fighting potential felonies, big fines, and prison time when they can plea to misdemeanors, a small fine and no jail time?

        henrybowman in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 18, 2021 at 1:40 pm

        As much as I hate them having to take the L, it doesn’t bar them from gun ownership, and given that it’s a misdemeanor rap, there’s practically no upside to angling for the pardon instead,

When they surrender their Constitutional Rights, will they give up the keys to their property and bank accounts? Might as well. The local law enforcement certainly did not provide adequate protection.

They can surrender those two guns. They can always go get more…

…..and you scoffed at the notion that it will take more than the threat of an armed populace to quell this.
A confrontation is nigh. Sadly, it will be for the cameras and not bona fide

Richard G. Callahan is a government thug. The McCloskey’s did nothing more than defend their lives and property from a mob.

    Paddy M in reply to Paddy M. | June 18, 2021 at 10:08 am

    Edit: Patricia needs to work on her trigger discipline. : )

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Paddy M. | June 18, 2021 at 1:31 pm

      And an imposing but legal confrontation I’m not giving ground and know what I am doing stance.

      However, on the other hand, if I had been around her, her lack of training, discipline and knowledge of what to do in that situation would have scared the hell out of me and set me to flight.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | June 18, 2021 at 8:49 pm

        A down vote? Seriously, if some woman is waving a handgun around like a wine glass, I don’t want to be anywhere near by.

        But she was on her property and threatened by a mob. She did nothing illegal, just frightening.

    n.n in reply to Paddy M. | June 18, 2021 at 10:29 am

    With only a demonstration, not actual enactment, of force. This ruling will put pressure on security personnel and private citizens who may be under threat. A progressive path and grade.

What a disappointment. Why would they agree to this, when they had the governor’s promise of a pardon if they were convicted? Just to spare themselves the expense of a trial? OK, that would have cost them more than the $2750 in fines plus the value of the two weapons. But it seems to me that for people in their financial position the value of an acquittal would be more than the cost of the defense. Well, maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know what the defense would actually have cost them, and there’s also the time involved.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2021 at 10:29 am

    A governor’s promise. I’m sure he meant it… /s

      I’m quite sure he did, and that the McCloskeys could have relied on it. Or they could have asked him to pardon them immediately rather than waiting for the trial. The only reason he said he’d do it only after a conviction was to give them the chance to fight the charges in court. If they decided they didn’t want that they could have just asked him to do it now.

    lichau in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2021 at 11:31 am

    With you on this one, Milhouse. I was considering a small contribution to his Senate campaign. Now–I will think it over a bit.
    Spinelessness is epidemic in DC, we don’t need to go recruit more.

    alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2021 at 1:41 pm

    IF the judicial system was not corruptable then fight. But this is in a city and area controlled by the Left. In thinking of the bigger picture of lawfare by the government against the individual where government has billions of dollars of weight …. maybe the only way to constrain it is to have it bear the cost of defense for the person. Presently, the process is the punishment.

      henrybowman in reply to alaskabob. | June 18, 2021 at 1:51 pm

      Wait until people begin to understand that the only remaining opposing tactic is to go Carl Drega on their butts. “If you’re going to persecute me in spite of my rights, the law, and the facts, then I will just take as many of you tyrants out as possible, in a very targeted manner, before I shuffle off.”

      These bureaucrats and tinpot totalitarians are nothing more than the ones Solzhenitsyn called “organs”: “The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

      JFK wasn’t kidding when he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2021 at 9:16 pm

    Milhouse, see above.

    The OK governor can only pardon:
    (1) After conviction
    515:20-3-1. General eligibility)
    (3) Only after a favorable recommendation by a five persons pardons and parole board review.

    A trial could drag out until the current governor is out of office.. The Board of Pardons and Paroles has five members, three of whom are appointed by the governor, the other two, respectively, by the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the presiding judge of the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals. Their terms expire with the governor’s.

    The governor can can grant commutation of a sentence also after conviction when the conviction is in custody of the OK Department of Corrections, and after the Board has investigated the issue and issued to the governor a recommendation for commutation. The board will send the governor a recommendation for commutation. This is a “tow-stage” process and again takes six months to a year. IF the board recommends a commutation, the recommendation is sent forward to the governor, who can accept or reject the recommendation. The governor cannot modify the recommendation. If the Board’s recommendation is rejected by the governor, the applicant (convicts Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey in this case) would need to reapply IF (a) the governor recommends it, or (2) three years after the rejection by the governor, or (3) if their is a relevant change in the underlying law.

    Further, the review process for a pardon normally takes six months to one year!

    To take advantage of any of the pardon or commutation power of the governor, McCloskey would first have to go to jail for likely at least 6 months, and his fate is piled into the hands of the 5 person Pardon and Paroles Board no matter what the governor promises.

    He was smart to take the deal offered. Frankly, I am surprised it was offered.

I really don’t understand why he did this

    MarkSmith in reply to gonzotx. | June 18, 2021 at 12:29 pm

    Look in to his background and it makes perfect sense.

    Mr McCloskey, 63, has previously represented a victim of police brutality. The man – who was identified by the initials I.F. – was kicked and struck by police officer David Maas in shocking dashcam footage that appeared to show him surrendering.

    The initials match a 2019 civil lawsuit made by Isaiah Forman in which the same allegations are put forward.

    Police at the time said Forman, then 21, was driving a car that had been taken by another man at gunpoint.

    The lawsuit against Maas claimed that Forman had ‘surrendered peaceably’. (YES SURE – BS WHAT ABOUT THE RAMMING OF A POLICE CAR – SEE BELOW)

    According to the indictment, Maas kicked and struck Forman in April 2019 while the man was compliant and not posing a physical threat to anyone, causing ‘bodily injury’ and depriving him of his right to be ‘free from unreasonable force’.

    A lawyer for Maas argued that Forman had ‘aggressively resisted arrest’ and ‘struck a police vehicle, narrowly missing a police officer in the process’.

    Maas was charged with one count of deprivation of rights under color of law in March 2020.

    Mr McCloskey said of the case: ‘I’m glad that the law enforcement agencies are subject to the same standard as everybody else’.

    Forman pleaded guilty to crashing his car into a police vehicle during the chase and is serving a seven year sentence for second-degree assault on a special victim.

So, idle threats are not legally viable choices to resolve trespassing. This puts the murder of Ashli Babbitt in perspective.

I gotta be honest, this is disappointing.

JusticeDelivered | June 18, 2021 at 11:26 am

Maybe they should move to a better state?

vote for Mark McCloskey – yeah, right!

I sure hope he get primaried. What a milquetoast panty waist. His client case background screams RINO. Why does anyone give this guy time.

If I was put on trial, I would have ask everyone one of those protesters to testify and include a credibility check for each one. I am pretty sure I would have a tough time with the wife, though, the way she was swinging that gun around was pretty scary.

    There were already declared candidates for the GOP Senate primary (a former governor and the AG) before he announced and Congresswoman Hartzler from the 4th District just jumped in.

    There was no way him announcing was going to cause other candidates to drop out or convince anyone seriously considering running for the seat to stay out so the nomination could be handed to him.

      MarkSmith in reply to p. | June 18, 2021 at 1:20 pm

      Probably in it to collect money for his bank account. I wish he would go away. Never liked him from day one.

    Danny in reply to MarkSmith. | June 18, 2021 at 3:38 pm

    1. Ok you give up everything you worked an entire lifetime to earn

    2. A lawyer is his client?

    3. The McCloskeys actually suffered at the hands of the wokists and saw the threat that woke institutions pose from the fact that they could have been put in front of a jury from their leftist city to convict them for blasphemy. I trust them not to bow to PC and to fight the culture war more than any professional politician. About the non-cultural issues like Jeff Bezos’ tax rate, murdering some more Arabs, giving a trillion dollars more to a woke military etc I don’t give a dam,. Sorry you can’t motivate me with the prospect of the Admiral who testified yesterday getting another hundred billion.

      The McCloskeys DID get the Marxist District Attorney who was prosecuting them removed from her post by a judge. No small accomplishment. I wonder how many times a Soros stooge has been removed? I would vote for him on that alone.

Buy some guns that work and take a gun safety training course or two.

“Agreed to give up their guns”. The DA had their guns. Doubtful they would have gotten them back.

    Once the government has your guns and you’re convicted of *anything* right down to jaywalking, good luck getting them back without spending ten times as much as they’re worth.

For those who are forgetting

1. The governor proved to be a coward and did not pardon and there is no reason to believe the governor would have grown a spine after trial

2. The left views any opposition to BLM as proof you are a racist who belongs in jail, and the jury would have been at least mostly leftist because it is from the jurisdiction it happened in

3. Even if against all odds the jury left their religion behind and acquitted months of legal costs pile up to a massive amount of money. While they built up their house over a 30 year period these are not billionaires.

4. If convicted their lives are over, appeals almost never work.

The charges are utterly ridiculous and show that when leftists are in charge our justice system is a joke whenever it intersects with leftist agendas. If you are attacked by a mugger our justice system will work for that apolitical crime, if attacked by a Democrat militia Democrat politicians everywhere side with their militia.

Hope they win the senate seat they are definitely going to push back against wokism.

    Milhouse in reply to Danny. | June 18, 2021 at 6:11 pm

    1. The governor proved to be a coward and did not pardon and there is no reason to believe the governor would have grown a spine after trial

    What the hell is this about? What sign of cowardice do you see in the governor? He said he’d pardon them if they were convicted. What makes you think he wouldn’t have?

      Danny in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2021 at 7:23 pm

      The fact that being taken to trial at all and having their lives uprooted and needing to pay up massive amounts of cash to defend themselves in a kangaroo court is a massive amount of punishment in and of itself.

      The right thing to do would have been issue the pardon as soon as video evidence showing exactly what happened was available.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Danny. | June 18, 2021 at 9:24 pm

    The governor actually cannot pardon until AFTER conviction and the sentence is served in full, to include any term of probation, and then ONLY after a favorable recommendation from the Pardons and Parole Board which investigates the matter usually for at least six months to a year AFTER the convict has served his full sentence and probation.

    The governor can COMMUTE a sentence only AFTER conviction and the convict is remanded into custody and prison, and then only AFER the convict makes application, and AFTER the Board of Pardons and Paroles investigates for six months to a year, and AFTER said board provides the governor with a recommendation for commutation which the governor may not alter but only approve or disapprove.

    It’s just the way the law works on OK.

      Then I was wrong about the governor because of the particulars of the state law, there was nothing the governor could do which makes it a lot more understandable however that they would accept a plea deal.

      As lawyers they know a jury doesn’t magically become not what they are (and that they live in a sapphire blue area full of people who want vengeance against them for defending themselves against their militia) while the prosecution knew they had absolutely no case and any attempt by the jury at doing it’s job would doom the prosecution.

      Why are we discussing OK governor pardon powers?

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to CanonF1. | June 20, 2021 at 1:07 am

        Because people are asking why McCloskey cut a deal.

          Milhouse in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | June 20, 2021 at 3:38 am

          Again, why are we discussing the OK governor’s pardon powers? What has he or she got to do with this?

          Parson can pardon people as soon as they’re convicted. He promised to do so, I see no reason to suspect that he didn’t mean it or that he wouldn’t have done it, and Danny has no business calling him a coward.

What’s that old expression, “A conservative is a liberal that got mugged.” ? These two got “mugged” and I am guessing it was a come to Jesus moment.

I don’t think every time some one pays to make a problem go away reflects a repudiation of one’s principles. The right decision for them.