Sednaya Prison

 SEDNAYA PRISON

I recommend following the developments from Syria.  I realize this is a difficult thing to do if one takes no newspapers, but TV should at least show photos and videos of the conditions inside the prison. Unfortunately, there is little information on how one got there.

We pride ourselves on being modern and progressive:  the future is aglow with possibility.  We live in an age of human potential:  there are no limits to what our imaginations can create.  We are better educated, better nourished, better cared for than any time in history and we expect this to continue for ever and ever - Amen.

I say, however, take a look at Sednaya and read the reports coming from Syria about it and the people that were taken there.  It appears to have been the last stop before liquidation having been tortured, starved and abused elsewhere first.  A person was just picked up by unknown people and disappeared never to be heard from again.  And once you consider this, you have to ask yourself what's so different in the human species from 1560 when  thousands of humans were being burnt at the stake by other humans for purposes of edification and entertainment.

I'm not convinced we have progressed very far.  Take a look at Putin's Russia which now is responsible for several hundred thousands of deaths from their invasion of Ukraine.  You have to ask yourself, just what is that all about?  What has been accomplished?  And, if you have never heard of Chechnya, you may want to Google it - - see what Putin did to it.  

To those in charge in these examples, other people's lives are meaningless.  They don't matter.  Other things are way more important than a bunch of people who either don't do what they are told or ignore you altogether.  

Assad and Putin are in charge you say and they are responsible.  But what I really want to point out is the hundreds and thousands of other human beings who do the work of torture, of starvation, of imprisonment.   Do you remember the Nazi concentration camps, the Soviet Gulag, the Argentinian and Brazilian and Chilean governments who tortured and killed thousands of their own citizens.  It took vast numbers of people to do the actual work and they did it to people just like themselves.

One needs to remember there is always someone available to throw you out of a helicopter.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

In the Case of Mumford

 IN THE CASE OF MUMFORD

Supreme Court of Iowa

A regular observation of mine is our government at work.  I practice as a criminal defense attorney and believe it a public service  to educate the public of our government's activities when appropriate.  My clients, as a criminal defense attorney, are criminals; they are criminals because they have been defined as such.  And what is more we are all criminals in one way or the other.  Now, in The Case of Mumford, she was engaged in a particularly nasty criminal act.  The arresting officer said  the last two digits of her license plate were not "clearly legible".

There is a criminal infraction of driving with license plates that are not "clearly legible". This, according to the Court, is sufficient reason to stop the vehicle and since the vehicle is no longer in route, the local k-9 dog could do a sniff, and we all know where that leads.  The criminal infraction of not having a "clearly legible"  license plate also includes the provision that the license plates be "free from foreign materials".  Now when you say that a license plate must be "clearly legible" and "free from foreign materials" does this mean both or either?  The court is silent on this issue.

An interesting novelty in this case is that once the officer is standing behind the car, he can apparently read the two numbers he professes not to have been able to read from his moving squad car. A relevant inquiry might have been just how clean was the officer's windshield.  Mumford, in her defense, produced video and "photos showing that you could actually identify the last two digits.  Didn't matter.  The video and photos were taken while the car was at a stand still, not in motion.  Apparently this was a significant factor in the Court's decision.  I'm not sure why the "free from foreign materials" was not addressed, since presumably that would have freed the court from further analysis of "legibility". 

Once again we have reinforcement of my previous statements - - you can't drive without committing a crime, and hence, adding to the community wide need for  criminal defense lawyers.  It is quite clear you are not going to get a break.  Every effort will be made to convict you if you are charged with a crime from speeding to murder and once convicted you are a criminal.  

Another factor in this case is the reason for the stop.  Defendant's car had been seen at a residence of a person associated with illegal narcotics.  Clearly the reason for the stop had nothing to do with the license plate.  They stopped the car because they wanted to do a dog sniff.  See, you don't need a warrant for a dog sniff.  It is so much easier to do a dog sniff than trying to find probable cause for a search warrant and a lot less work.  You have no right to privacy in your vehicle contrary to what courts may say.  Check your pockets, the center console, and the glove compartment before driving. That trip to the grocery store could cost you.  This case stands for the proposition that you're just out of luck if you get stopped for driving - should have stayed home.

So once again folks an update on our government at work.  

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Life Will Be Better

 LIFE WILL BE BETTER

Life will be better, or at least I presume so, after we load freight trains full of immigrants and deposit them in some desert in northern Mexico.  Now I personally don't know any illegal immigrants, nor do I know anyone that does know any, so I haven't felt personal fear from them; but life will obviously be better, more secure, and idyllic if we get rid of them.  

How do I know this?  It has to be.  The major issue raised in the last national election was illegal immigration.  In speeches, editorials, and satellite news, we have heard the constant refrain of the awfulness of this hoard of people coming across the border uninvited. There must be a rather striking difference between an invited immigrant and an uninvited immigrant.  Apparently there is sufficient danger in this hoard of illegals to frighten the most stalwart.  The danger increases daily.  Loading up trainloads of immigrants is of such importance that the whole country must be reminded daily of the danger of not accomplishing this.  The danger is imminent.  We must all be on board with this homeland cleansing sort of thing.

Obviously the danger must be to our way of life, our wellbeing, our very existence.  It has to be.  One can not go through a day in contact with others either at work, at the gym, or attending some sporting event, without hearing random comments of the dangers posed by illegal immigrants.  I've even heard say that they come armed with high powered weapons and backpacks full of fentanyl. We  certainly don't condone this behavior and the quicker we get rid of several million of these people and finish building that wall between us and Mexico, all will be well.  Those who say so have convinced me.

The word I used "those" is a key here.  Apparently everyone knows more than I do.  I try to be somewhat up on national and world events by subscribing to a few newspapers and monthly publications but I'll be darned if I have felt any impending doom.  Now I have been told, by a neighbor actually (not in Mingo) that there is an apartment in New Jersey with a group of illegal immigrants with high-powered firepower.  Our governor has sent Iowa State troopers to the border to help control this flood of drugs and criminals coming into the United States.  There was one illegal immigrant that was convicted of a heinous sex crime somewhere here in the States.  Apparently and clearly I should be more aware.

So the facts speak for themselves; they have to go.  Our well being depends on us being rid of these people.  Just because we make their lives even more miserable than it already is should not deter us.  Our lives and comfort are what count.  Always has been and always will be.  Just because you are miserable, have nothing, and nowhere to go, this is not my problem.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Let's Organize

 LET'S ORGANIZE

I have always thought that  a union, or some other like organization, should be developed by criminals.  In other words, criminals should get together and organize to present a united front to the authorities.  Of all the people in the country that are  unrepresented when it comes to laws and government policy, criminals are the most underrepresented.  And simply having your own lawyer to represent you in court really doesn't accomplish what a union could do.  A lawyer is required to have only your best interest in mind, not the criminal class in general.

This under-representation is purposeful.  As an example, a standard rule of probation or parole is that you should not associate with other people on probation or parole, which dictum alone is made to insure that criminals do not get together and organize.  A union of criminals would be a direct assault on government authority or so assumed.  This needs to be addressed first. It is not only necessary but in my opinion unconstitutional to determine who a person can associate with or not.  You know, what if my wife is a felon as well?  This happens.

But when you stop and think about it, what group of people are treated more poorly and with more contempt than people who have been defined and marked as criminals.  The State, whichever State one may be referring to, has made, does continue to make, and will, apparently, always make more criminals and this is to be encouraged.  After years practicing criminal law, it has become clear to me that the laws creating ever yet more crimes have one primary purpose - - additional control of the public, those who are supposedly the reason government is instituted in the first place, which is to make life more agreeable.  Defining a person as a criminal, especially as a felon, is certainly at cross purposes with this raison d'etre. 

Just think of the things that criminals, as organized, could address:  length of sentences, amount of fines and court costs,  conjugal visits,  work release, jail food, ankle bracelets, various rules that restrict where you can live and what you can do, etc.  Pamphlets of explanation could be provided for all those who are arrested  Among the standard jail issue when being arrested, such a pamphlet would give instructions on who to contact for union membership along with a list of bondsmen and attorneys.

One issue you may want to consider is the obvious necessity of  renewing membership ranks with death or rehabilitation always at cross purpose; and even though new criminals join the ranks continually through existing laws, more are always welcome.   It would not be unexpected that any organization of criminals would encourage state and federal legislators to continue to enact more crimes every  legislative session.  The more criminals, the bigger the organization, the more effective their action.  In addition, it would help my business as a criminal defense attorney.  Our legislators increase my workload every year in any event, which I'm duly thankful for, for if there weren't any crime, I'd have to find something else to do.

Newton is a perfect place to begin such an effort as well.  It was for many decades a union town with Maytag here making appliances that were shipped worldwide.  There must be some expertise left in the community that could advise and instruct in the nuances of organizing and maintaining a union and one can only hope that those with this expertise would be willing to assist in such a worthwhile endeavor.

The criminal organization, or preferably the criminal union, could, while encouraging laws that  increase their numbers, at the same time develop action plans for better treatment once a person is so classified.  These two things are not incompatible contrary to first appearance.  We want more members to make our demands more demanding and at the same time we want improvement in our circumstances once we are classified as a criminal.  Seems reasonable to me.

One last thought on the subject is warranted.  There must be an effort to convince those who simply get tickets for speeding that they are just as much a criminal as a burglar or robber.  I know that this might be a stretch for some, but a proper educational effort should ameliorate any objection.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

In the Case of Staton

 IN THE CASE OF STATON

 As I have previously mentioned, it would seem necessary to have a reasonably informed public about matters of possible importance 

to them.  Since I am a criminal defense attorney, I try to stay informed of criminal developments coming out of our Supreme Court which may have some relevance. 

In the case of Staton, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a defendant being sentenced after a guilty verdict does not have the right to say, at sentencing,  that he was offered a lower charge and fewer years in prison if he had just plead guilty pursuant to a plea offer.  Obviously, the prosecutor was willing to allow the defendant a lesser charge and a less harsh penalty if he would have plead guilty  so the State would not have had to go to the time, trouble, and expense of a trial; after all there is even a rule of procedure that says you can't mention plea discussion or offers in any preceding, criminal or civil.  It has been encoded.

All well and good you say.  However, there needs to be some discussion.  I expect 98% of all criminal cases are resolved by a plea of guilty, normally to a lesser charge or fewer charges than were filed.  So, if you get charged with 18 traffic violations and the deal is if you plead guilty to nine of them, nine will be dismissed, you take the offer. If every criminal case that is filed were to be tried, every one, the judicial system would break down in a day.  What I mean is that if every person charged with a crime when appearing in court said not guilty it would be over - finished - done.

So what our legislators and courts have done is to make sure that the process is correctly administered; that is ensuring plenty of convictions with the minimum amount of work:  It is a matter of handling the thousands of cases that come before the courts.  And law enforcement understands this so they file every charge they can think of when they take you to jail.

If you have committed some heinous crime (such as driving while barred) but the prosecutor offers to reduce the charge to a simple misdemeanor which carries 30 days in jail instead of two years in prison and you refuse and are convicted and the prosecutor gets up before the court and tells the judge you are a risk to society and should go to prison for two years or at least spend six months in county, you are not allowed to tell the judge that the prosecutor didn't think you were such a bad fellow when he previously offered a lesser charge and less time incarcerated.  On the surface of things, this doesn't seem very fair.

The rationale of the Court goes like this: "A contrary holding might have a chilling effect on plea offers; some prosecutors presumably would be deterred from extending a plea offer if the defendant in his allocution could later argue  the plea offer supports a lighter sentence".  This one statement of the Court holds a dozen different issues, none of which are addressed.

What happens is, if you continue to proclaim your innocence, which you certainly have the right to do, and are convicted regardless, you subject yourself to a harsher penalty than you were offered with a plea.  Is there any question as to why 98% of all crimes are disposed of by plea?  Efficiency is necessary.  In the system we have built where the criminal law's primary function  is to control the public, this is how it has to go.   You are a bad guy if you commit a crime and a really bad guy if you go to trial.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Lilliput

                                                                           LILLIPUT

                                          Jonathan Swift

Books for Bigots

You'll have to give it to Gulliver, he knew when his welcome was done and time to vacate the premises.  After pissing on the palace things became a little toasty and the consensus was that he was to be blinded for his transgression.  The animosity had grown in certain quarters for several reasons including the amount that it cost to maintain Gulliver in nourishment.   It apparently was draining the treasury, although it would seem to me that feeding him, just by itself, would have resulted in full employment but the economics of that must be left for a different discussion.

The question remains, 'what can we recommend for reading material to Bigots?'.  It remains a constant that Bigots very seldom read a book but it would seem beneficial to the remainder of the population if we could somehow convince a Bigot or two to relax with one occasionally.  Gulliver's Travels might be a good place to start. 

This would have several benefits.  The first benefit would be the time actually reading.  This would be a period, however momentary, that the Bigot would not be pestering someone else about their behavior or beliefs - - a welcome relief for many.  A second possible benefit, and I say possible advisedly, a person, even a Bigot, might learn something from reading.  

Obviously it depends on the book, but even a superman comic might benefit some Bigots;  for instance, the semi-literate.  But back to Gulliver's Travels Part One, Guliver having pissed on the palace in an act of concern for the Princess and the beautiful palace; and indeed, saving the palace certainly and possible the life of the Princess, was put in jeopardy by the long-standing law that one shall not piss within the palace grounds, the punishment being death. That seems a little stiff for taking a leak near or on the palace, but as we all know the law is the law and must be obeyed.  Apparently there are no mitigating circumstances in Lilliput.

The Emperor did, however, take notice of Gulliver's previous assistance in destroying an invading fleet from Belfuscu  bent on destroying Lilliput and carrying off its inhabitants.  In recognition of this the Emperor decided Gulliver could live, allowing the   sentence' severity to be  decreased from death to blinding, neither of which meeting with the approval of Gulliver he departed and made his way back to England.

So what we have learned, mere reinforcement for most of us, is that no good deed goes unpunished.  It is uncertain if most Bigots are aware of this adage.  It has gone into common use so one might presume most Bigots to be familiar with it, but since doing good deeds is not something Bigots are commonly known for, it might actually be a tale worth the time. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Just Buy It!

 JUST BUY IT!

The grocery bill is too high, cars are too expensive, college is exorbitant, going to a movie costs a fortune.  We think about these things pretty much continuously.  What to buy and when is the theme of life - - can we afford it, can we save enough to buy one?  We need information; we need to do some research; what does Consumer Reports say about it?  We want a lot of stuff, some of which we will acquire and some of which we won't.

Let's do a little searching, for the cost of what we want is important to us.  We all want stuff,  the lower the price, the better off we are and the more stuff we can buy, so we need to be informed.  Maybe we are missing a deal that is available online somewhere.  We certainly don't want to miss anything.

So I say, let's take a small sampling of our knowledge of available products.   The questionnaire will look something like this: What newspapers do you subscribe to and read?  What periodicals do you take and read?  What books have you read lately?  What news organizations do you tune into while in the car or changing the oil of your lawn mower? 

The answer I get is usually none (maybe one).  The purpose of this exercise is to illustrate our level of awareness. This idea of such a questionnaire was occasioned by a piece I read about citizenship (a possibly outmoded concept no longer in circulation).  The list of requirements of a citizen began with the requirement of being informed.  

Unfortunately, we don't consider ourselves citizens, we consider ourselves consumers.  The idea of being informed, in the sense of citizenship, does not include the price of a hamburger and fries at the local fast food establishment or the cost of a box of imported raspberries at the supermarket.  What it does include is an understanding of the society in which we live and who is in charge.

A second criteria is being involved.  Involvement also requires time; time of which we have little to spare.  The week is work and the weekend is for football and shopping.  One hasn't the time to either read a newspaper or attend a meeting about some civic improvement or new policy or legislation being proposed.  "Don't bother me with that stuff, it doesn't concern me."

Unfortunately there are people in power who have plans for you and me and we really should know who these people are and what they want to do - - and we don't.  I suggest that we spend a little less time thinking about what to buy next and think a little about the people we put in power and what they have planned for us.  Our future will depend, not on the price of chicken breasts, but on who is in charge and what they do once they get there.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo