31 December 2024

A Certainty

 A CERTAINTY


Do you ever wonder, "What's the plan?  Do we have a plan?  Is a plan even necessary?  What if we  don't have a plan?  Does it even matter?"  The first response to these questions is "What are you talking about?"  "Who needs a plan and for what?"


Interesting questions for which no thought has been given.  I'm what many would call elderly.  In my grade school we had a plan.  At home we had a "homemade" bomb shelter in the basement stocked with various foodstuffs - - it was a plan.  Our government actually believed there was a possibility we could have a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.  And what is somewhat remarkable, in retrospect, they had a plan.  Whether this plan would have been effective now seems doubtful.  But they had a plan.


We have no plan.  Back then there were two countries with nuclear weapons - - manageable.  Today it would probably be impossible to know how many countries have nuclear weapons.  The only country, to my knowledge who gave up their nuclear weapons was Ukraine and look where that got them.


The other factor which seems to be an axiom of modern life is that if we have a technology, we will use it; and by that I mean the human population of this planet. It's progress.   It is inevitable that hydrogen bombs will be used on earth - - it is a certainty.   Best not to think about it.  I've got too many other things to worry about; no sense in losing sleep over the possibility of being fried by a nuke or quickly  eaten by radiation spreading over the continent,


It is merely a matter of time, though, that some  scout troop like Al Qaeda gets their hands on a nuclear weapon and will use it.  We have no plan.  We may not see it, but our children will and they also will not have a plan; they too will have other things to worry about, other problems to solve, careers to pursue; no time for a plan; it just doesn't fit.  


We simply don't want to think about it which in a way is understandable; but you would think that our government would give it some thought.  Maybe they have and simply aren't telling us.  That would be good, but for some reason I doubt this has happened or somewhere somehow we would have heard about it.  The only plan seems to be retaliation - - multiplying the amount of radiation swirling around the planet on the jet stream.  We would not only be liquidating the enemy, but radiating the rest of the planet including us.


So, I guess I'll just join the throng; don't give it a thought.  We have more important things to consider anyway such as immigrants and the price of gas and hamburger, interest rates, and the cost of insurance.  Too much happening to worry about Armageddon.  


Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

27 December 2024

Under the Rug

 UNDER THE RUG


The Newton Daily News recently had an opinion piece about rugs and sweeping things under them.  This particular piece was concerned about the number of homeless people who are currently under the rug and how many more would be swept there.  The author of that piece, Farrah Hassen, J. D., believes the situation is dire and needs addressed.


Having a bunch of homeless people living in tents and other temporary shelters littering the sidewalks and underpasses is certainly a concern.  After all, one doesn't want the litter nor the other effects of homelessness such as panhandling and unwanted conversation with derelicts.   So what is the solution?  


You can always throw them in jail, but then you have to feed them and give them a bed to sleep in and guess who has to stand the cost of this? Us!  We've been doing the same with those we deem sex offenders for a number of years now.  But there are less sex offenders than there are homeless people (presumably), so we have been able to accommodate our sex offenders in jail and prison when they decide to camp in places deemed unacceptable - - such as within city limits.


But homelessness seems to be significantly increasing.  Instead of a tent or two, we may now have dozens of homeless to deal with when doing such routine things as grocery shopping.  Who wants a bunch of hungry people standing around watching you load your groceries into the back of your SUV?  Not me!


So in search of a remedy, there is always jail - - a tried and true American solution.  It can't be helped folks.  Rather than providing housing or at least, giving them a place where they can pitch their tents or set up what other temporary structures they can come up with, we just need to chase them out of town altogether and be rid of them.  What Dr. Hassen proposes, that our governments should take responsibility for these people, is totally farfetched and unacceptable.  The idea that our government should concern itself with anyone other than those with enough money not to need government assistance is absurd. 


The U. S. Supreme Court couldn't think of anything better than making criminals out of them and if they can't think of anything better than that, why should we?


Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Prosecution of Falstaff

 THE PROSECUTION OF FALSTAFF

The Case of Young

Supreme Court of Iowa



We now have prosecutions and convictions of criminal offenses determined by whether it would have been something which Falstaff might have been guilty of or Hotspur.  Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with either, they are creatures of Shakespeare who now has attained the imminence of a legal authority in the annals of Iowa criminal jurisprudence.


Our case law, the literature of the courts, has now added Shakespeare as an authority to which we must pay homage.  I am not familiar with Blackstone's Commentaries so am unable to derive the historical verity of Shakespeare's status as a source of the common law of England, but if Justice Mansfield says it is so, it must be.


In the Case of Young, first name Artell, the federal authorities had obtained the signature of Young when being released from federal prison, that he would agree to having his house searched if there was "reasonable suspicion" that he might have illegal substances on or about his property.  The idea of these probation agreements meeting the current standards of contractual arrangements - - not a factor.


So, federal agents searched Mr. Young's residence without a warrant and found piddling amounts (obviously personal use) of crack, cocaine, and marijuana.  Apparently the Feds were too busy to deal with Mr. Young, so they called up state law enforcement and said "Hey, we've got a guy you can prosecute and throw back in prison, but we haven't got time to do it so it would be wonderful if you would do it".  And, of course, our state law enforcement said "sure, we're always available to help you guys out".


The issue that our Supreme Court wrestled with in this case, was whether the U. S. Constitution should apply to the search or the Iowa Constitution should apply.  Do you need a warrant to search the home of a person on probation?  The Feds didn't have a warrant.  There was much discussion of "a special-needs exception" and other morsels of ratiocination, but the Court said that because federal agents did it and Mr. Young was on federal probation, federal law applies and the Feds don't have to follow Iowa law when searching the residence of an Iowa citizen in the State of Iowa.  Good to know, right?


So there you have it, Shakespeare is now  legal authority in the guise of Falstaff (Hotspur is another issue altogether)  and the Feds can search your home without a warrant if you're on federal probation.  As I have often said, and not proven wrong, our State will find a reason to prove you a criminal, even if they have to hunt for it in the literature of the 16th and 17th centuries.  It's called 'stare decisis'.


Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo


23 December 2024

Too Many or Too Few

  TOO MANY OR TOO FEW


We need to get rid of all these illegal immigrants; apparently we have all the people we need and we don't want any more.  But wait, we are not going to have any more abortions:  we need more people.  We obviously don't have enough people and we need more.  Which is it?


There is something amiss here.  Either we don't have enough or we have too many.  Oh! I get it.  We don't have enough of the right kind - - that's what we don't have enough of.  Why didn't I think about that before making such a big deal about treating immigrants poorly and putting them on trains to deserts in northern Mexico so that the Mexicans can deal with them.  


In the meantime the people that are here already, you know those whose ancestors come from Germany, England, Holland, Scotland and such need to have more babies.  Maybe we would still have a hospital prepared to deliver babies here in Newton if we would just get rid of this abortion thing.  If you get pregnant, suck it up and quit complaining.  You are doing it so we don't have to let in a bunch of poor starving immigrants who just suck up our tax dollars.


I always wondered why the big todo about abortion.  We want more white people and fewer non-white people.  You don't have to mention race at all; it's a non-racial thing - - it's a religious thing.  You are committing murder if you have an abortion; you are not committing murder, at least not where we have to take responsibility for it, by simply deporting people who have no place to go.  If they don't make it, oh well, we aren't responsible. 


But this murder thing bears discussion.  What's the big deal about terminating a fetus?  We are going to need an answer to this.  All of a sudden the concern for  murder is at the top of the charts?  After wiping out millions of indigenous Americans (pre-Columbus people), killing millions of slaves with brutality and substandard treatment, what's the big deal?  So now we are humane?  Well, if so, it's a good thing right?  Human life is sacred and after all it should be.  I think we can all agree on that.  None of us want to get killed because someone else doesn't approve of us.


But we do need to decide:  Do we want more people or less?  This appears to be the question that needs an answer first.  Then once we have an answer to that question, if in the positive, we need to determine what kind of people these people should be.  This last issue appears to be a somewhat trickier one and needs further discussion.


Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

22 December 2024

The Twenty-Seventh City

 THE TWENTY-SEVENTH CITY

Jonathan Franzen

Books for Bigots


Having finished The Twenty-Seventh City by Mr. Franzen, it is time to consider its appeal to Bigots - - a constant quest for appropriate fiction.  Considering I am limiting my quest to fiction, American novels normally, generally with the view, appropriate I believe, that nonfiction would be far beyond the tolerance of most Bigots.  When a book might want to discuss religion, or dinosaurs, or the physics of the universe, or human sexuality, or gender identity, or any other topic one might be able to think of, it quickly occurs to one that such topics contain facts and scientific conclusions unacceptable to the minds closed to them, which normally, is the condition of the minds of most varieties of Bigots. I will admit there are varieties.


Now The Twenty-Seventh City revolves around Martin Probst, the builder of the St. Louis Arch and Jammu, an East Indian woman, the police chief of Bombay, who suddenly and mysteriously becomes the police chief of St. Louis.  The setting is St. Louis, always a plus for anyone familiar with the local.  Love eventually prevails, but with an inordinate amount of intrigue and what appears to be an attempt of the Indians to take over the administration and economics of both St. Louis City and St. Louis County.


Considering the book is a mixed bag of intrigue and rich people being stupid, it is probably a book that a Bigot could get through with considerable effort.  I will say that the book meanders from intrigue to the unsatisfactory lives of Probst and friends along with the effort to combine City and County of St. Louis. The various threads of plots get tied up in the last few pages - - not very satisfactorily it seems to me.  


It actually took me a while to get through the book.  In other words, I did not find it riveting and read it in small doses.  I do believe that most Bigots would find it a difficult go.  As with most current fiction, much of the action would not meet with the approval of the  Bigotry with which I am familiar.  Family and marriage appear to be particularly discordant with daughter moving in with some guy she just happens to meet while looking for someone else in a crowded St. Louis bar.  


Looking back on the characters in the book, no one is happy or content with their lives with the exception of the Indians who are too busy plotting for economic dominance to think about it. Other than once again giving us a sense of the modern American condition of aimless activity with the exception of becoming more rich than one already is, the book has little new or profound and I am afraid that even with this caveat, Bigots are simply better off not even considering the book a possibility.


Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

14 December 2024

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

09 December 2024

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

28 November 2024

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


23 November 2024

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


22 November 2024

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


19 November 2024

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