The Cat Thing

 THE CAT THING

Being a criminal defense attorney, it seems only right that I share

a few of the criminal cases before our local courts; the citizens of our community should always be informed as much as possible of current policy and government activity that may affect them.   Such is the case with a person I know, whether professionally or otherwise need not be discussed, who was charged with animal abuse for leaving a cat in a residence (with open window) having been evicted by the landlord for, presumably, nonpayment of rent.

The defendant in this matter is thrown out on the street by the landlord, and then prosecuted by the State of Iowa for not taking a cat with him.  The landlord is not being prosecuted for human abuse, the ex-tenant is being prosecuted for animal abuse - - for leaving the cat.    

Now, don't get in a toot and conclude that I'm in favor of cat abuse (although I will say the world has too many cats).  One does not have to be in favor of cat abuse to wonder about the disparity here.  Afterall, it is not clear if the landlord actually evicted the cat.  The cat may not have had to depart the premises as did the human; and if this is the case, it would seem that prosecuting the human for leaving the cat would be premature.  The facts regarding this situation are unclear.

One ought to be familiar with the situation where a cat or cats share an abode with humans and do pretty much what they please when they please.  This is especially true with farm cats and cats of more rural areas.  The idea, to the cat, that it is owned by a human, has no purchase.  Ergo, any forceful entry and detainer evicting a human from a residence may have no effect on the feline resident - - it is not the one being evicted; there is nothing in the paperwork naming the cat as the evictee or as a defendant in the legal proceeding affecting the human.  

Now you say, the tenant left the cat without food.  Okay, fair enough.  The cat and the human are now in the same situation if both leave the premises.  Neither has a place to sleep and both have to go out and find something to eat.  Determining that the human has to find something for himself to eat and at the same time find something for the cat to eat seems a little unfair.  The cat and human both this time of year can find nice fat crickets to eat and the cat can catch a mouse or two while the human may have some difficulty in that regard.  And they both will have the same dumpsters to check for thrown away food to share.  So it actually may be that the cat is better off than the human when it comes to dining after eviction; and if this is so, the idea of prosecuting the human for animal abuse seems unjustified altogether.

As I indicated above, this article is simply an effort to inform the local citizenry of local legal issues.  It is always good to be informed of these matters so that one's conduct can be in conformity with local expectations - - if evicted, take the cat.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Sugar Coated Nutsack

                                 THE SUGAR FROSTED NUTSACK

                                        Mark Leyner

                                     Books for Bigots

This book would not be read by a bigot after the first three sentences:

"There was never nothing.  But before the debut of the Gods, about fourteen billion years ago, things happened without any discernible context.  There were no recognizable patterns.  It was all incoherent."

The book is "incoherent" and reflects a total "incoherence".  Toward the end of the book, beginning at page 209 of the First Back Bay Paperback Edition, March 2013 our author tells you what you have read:

". . . with all its excruciating redundancies, heavy-handed, stilted tropes and wearying clichés, its overwrought angst, all its gnomic non sequiturs, all its off-putting adolescent scatology and cringe inducing smuttiness, all the depraved tableaus and orgies of masturbation with all their bulging, spurting shapes, and all the compulsive repetitions about Freuds's repetition compulsion . . . ."

This book is a difficult read and not one many would get through.  If this is a picture of the modern world, we are in trouble.  It certainly isn't a world I believe I currently live in or wish to; but our author seems determined to convince us that our world, the one we all live in, makes no sense whether we think it does or not.  

To the list of categories listed by the author himself, I would add schizophrenia to the top of the list.  The world depicted is clearly schizophrenic.  I would presume without clear proof, once again, that a bigoted mind has no more likelihood of understanding schizophrenia than it does a cross dresser.  Unfortunately, it is my understanding of the current bigotry, that it is firmly religious based; not just Christian mind you but Islam and Hinduism and other religions who have the mindset of "I am right and everybody else is wrong and going to hell or where nonbelievers go these days". 

One can read a book for numerous reasons; one of which is to help us understand the world we live in - give us a new perspective and so forth.  As I said, I found it difficult to get to the end of this book, but I was determined.  There is a conversation at the end between the author and an interlocutor where Mr. Leyner attempts to give us some incite, which to my way of thinking, he fails to do.

I would recommend the book for anyone who wants a real challenge and a wild ride into what gives every appearance of viewing the world through a schizophrenic lens.  In my line of work, schizophrenia is a matter of fact occurrence so I'm somewhat familiar with those afflicted.  It is an example of schizophrenia plainly.  And as the author says in the first three sentences all is without context, recognizable patterns, or coherence. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Iowa v. Berg

 IOWA V. BERG

We have another Iowa Supreme Court opinion that needs some discussion.  I know that what the Supreme Court says is the law of the State, but discussion isn't necessarily forbidden simply because the Supreme Court has made a pronouncement.  This case appears to be another of those instances which require some additional attention.

We have an employee of Casey's who authorized some gift cards to herself without paying for them.  She was originally charged with theft in the 4th degree (stealing more than $300).  She used the Casey's card to buy some gas and groceries at her place of employment (Casey's) the next day; it was her employer's gift card.  The State did not file the required trial information in time and the case was dismissed.  Having no intention of not prosecuting a citizen when given the chance, the State filed the charge of unauthorized use of a credit card.

Now the crime under which Ms. Berg was charged the second time is found at 715A.6(1)(a)(3) of the Iowa Code:  "A person commits a public offense by using a credit card for the purpose of obtaining property or services with knowledge of any of the following: (1) The credit card is stolen or forged or (3) For any other reason the use of the credit card is unauthorized.  She used the credit card the next day for a purchase of $59.67.  She issued  three gift cards to herself for a total of $700.

The Court said she couldn't be prosecuted for 4th degree theft because you have to steal more than $300 for that charge (even though people are convicted of lesser included offenses all the time).   So the State was simply out of luck on that one.  It would seem to me, that by stating it in this manner, the court is acquiescing in the view that Ms. Berg stole $59.67.   The cards issued were a Casey's card for $75, a Visa card for $200, and an Amazon card for $425.  Only the Casey's card was used.

Just how do gift cards work?  I can only assume that when a person buys a gift card from Casey's, Casey's receives the payment and then transfers that amount digitally less any fee for the sale to the issuer of the card.  This would have occurred in two of the instances, both not used.  The Casey's card, apparently, was used to purchase the gas and groceries at Casey's.  Again, one would assume, that at the point that Casey's transfers $200 to Visa and $425 to Amazon, Casey's is out $625 less fees.  Casey's has at that point lost $625 without reimbursement.  These transactions presumably are done automatically via algorithms.  Presumably, again, once it is determined that the gift cards were issued without payment, Visa and Amazon are notified and cancel the cards and return the money to Casey's, again by some algorithm automatically.  The $625 has been returned.  Interestingly, Casey's would have been out $625 whether the gift cards for Visa and Amazon were used or not and Ms. Berg would not have committed a crime by issuing them to herself without ever using them.

Now the gas and groceries were obviously obtained from Casey's without payment; i.e., a theft.  But apparently the Supreme Court says not, even though they make the statement that the 4th degree theft charge couldn't stand anyway because she only used it to purchase $59.67 worth of merchandise. The Casey's  gift card was authorized and used the next day.  The theft, it would seem to me, occurred the next day when Ms. Berg used the Casey's card to purchase $59.67 worth of gas and groceries at Casey's - - a simple misdemeanor.  Clearly Casey's was not harmed in any way when Ms. Berg authorized the Casey's gift card to herself without payment.  Casey's was only at a loss when the card was used, contrary to what would have been the case with the issuance of the cards to Visa and Amazon.  This raises another issue not addressed by the court:  How do we determine the card was stolen or unauthorized? 

Casey's cards belong to Casey's but this is not the theft alleged.  Section 715.6(2)(c) provides  that it is the amount of "property . . . sought to be secured by the credit card" that is determinative of the level of crime.  So  one doesn't actually have to use the amount of the card to commit the level of crime: Class C Felony, Class D Felony, Aggravated Misdemeanor.  One only has to use the card: $1 will suffice even if the card had been issued for $1,499 (anything under $1,500 being an aggravated misdemeanor).  If she would have authorized the Casey's card for more than $10,000 it would have been a Class C Felony, over $1,500 it would have been a Class D Felony, again, even if she would have used them for only a $1 purchase.  If Ms. Berg had used each of the three gift cards she did issue to herself to make purchases of $1 each, she would be facing six years in prison for a $3 theft. If, for the higher amounts,15 years in prison for Class D Felonies, and 30 years in prison for Class C Felonies.

Apparently, intent is now a crime; especially when dealing with gift cards.  If I authorize a gift card to myself in the amount of $75 without paying for it, clearly I am intending on using it to purchase $75 worth of merchandise without having shelled out the $75 for the purchase of the gift card - - normally a simple misdemeanor.  But because I used this gift card which I didn't pay for (but authorized) in the amount of $75, I have committed an aggravated misdemeanor subject to two years in prison rather than a simple misdemeanor subject to 30 days in jail.

I'm not the Supreme Court of Iowa, but it would seem to me that the Court may want to give this situation a little more thought even though Justice Oxley wrote the opinion and all other justices joined in it, it seems to miss the crux of the matter.  Simply because you used your employer's gift card to steal $59.67 worth of merchandise from your employer rather than take it out of the cash register, it is an aggravated misdemeanor rather than a simple misdemeanor.  Something is askew here.  Apparently it depends on how you steal something rather than how much you steal that determines the punishment you face.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Proud Iowan

 PROUD IOWAN

I have just finished with an article regarding banned books here in the United States.  The article indicates that Florida and Iowa are responsible for most of them; as many as 10,000 nationwide.  The article appears in what is apparently an online publication called "19th".  

I can not verify the numbers of banned books nor the statement that Iowa and Florida lead the country in the banning of books, but the simple allegation is enough to make any Iowan proud.  Hey, we're leading the country in ignorance and intolerance.  Way to go Iowa!  Let's keep up the good work; there is always more to do in the fight against knowledge and tolerance and we shouldn't be satisfied with what has already been accomplished.

As remarked previously, banning and burning books has a long and illustrious history.  Throughout medieval Europe whenever a book came along to contest the local beliefs, to the flames it went and sometimes the author along with it.  Standard practice folks so what we need to understand is that what Iowa and Florida are doing has a pedigree; an established practice of centuries.

We have here the traditional demise of unwanted literature and unwanted ideas and practices.   One set of people decide what other sets of people will have access to and what they will not have access to.  Very simple really.  Whoever is in charge gets to choose our reading material; what could be fairer than that?  Democracy at work, right?

Now, as you have probably guessed, I'm not in favor of burning books or authors nor of banning them.  Many people have made and continue to make a conscious effort to know as little about the world they live in and the people who accompany them here on planet earth.  I have never thought this a reasonable or responsible view, but who am I?  If a person doesn't want to read a book, they are free not to read it.  If the person who has not read the book doesn't want to hear about it, they don't have to hear about it.  No one is forcing other people to be ignorant; that is a choice each of us has to make for ourselves.

Just as I will not force someone not to read a book, I request that others not resist my efforts to read a book or my child's efforts.  Seems only fair.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Love Medicine

 LOVE MEDICINE

Louise Erdrich

Books for Bigots

In my quest for Books for Bigots, I have read Love Medicine by Louise Erdrich.  I thought maybe life on the rez would be a topic that might appeal to Bigots.  However, that thought was quickly dispersed as my reading progressed.

Life on the Rez is clearly the result of the white takeover of the American continent.  The Rez as reflected in the book is merely one little nook in the landmass of North America, but it reflects the life of the Indians inhabiting that little nook of real estate and it is not a pleasant picture.  Now this is the problem for any Bigot attempting to read the book; it clearly points the finger at us white folks.  This would not be something that a Bigot would be able to tolerate.

Bigots are not to blame for anything; for fault in human character is the result of the person who carries the fault.  A fault is a moral failure and we all know that moral failures are character defects in the person reflecting them; hence, nobody's fault but the person who has them.  We, meaning white people, are not to blame.  This is the attitude that seems to prevail with the Bigots with whom I am familiar.

Being a white guy myself, I have a difficult time in personalizing the experiences of the characters in Love Medicine, or for that matter, the whole milieu of reservation life  The reservation is a life apart and not a very attractive one as portrayed by the author who, as an Indian, is well qualified to reflect on the issues inherent in growing up on the Rez.  I appreciate that I now have an understanding that I did not previously have.

Ms. Erdrich does not cast blame, she merely illustrates.  This is how things are.  How things are is the purpose of a novel; novels are illustrations of life current and past.  And what Bigots such as our in situs legislative literary critic Brad Zaun, fail to understand is that books such as Love Medicine presume the critic's ignorance of life on the Rez and with the further presumption that such knowledge can only be beneficial to a person such as Mr. Zaun who sits in a legislative body and purports to make the laws that govern our behavior.

Now we know that our presumptions are merely that, presumptions; but more likely they are simply wishful thinking on our part that our legislators would actually have some idea of the world around them and take the knowledge so acquired into consideration when they pass the laws that they pass.  I know this is asking for some thought rather than simply reaction against something that can be targeted as naughty or bad or simply immoral in the eyes of the Bigot so considering, but really!  We need some actual thought when passing legislation.

So, even though we technically do not have any reservations in Iowa, we do have the Meskwaki settlement, which I'm sure would have some similarity to the Rez as pictured in Love Medicine and the characters reflected.  In conclusion, it would seem a book to spend a few hours with especially for a Bigot. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Grant's Pass v. Johnson

 GRANT'S PASS V. JOHNSON

This is a US Supreme Court case and one which has made the news recently where the Court has held that homeless people living in public places can be removed by the municipality.  In other words, cities and towns are now allowed to remove homeless people from wherever they may be within the city limits.

To understand the decision, one must first know that the court in a much earlier ruling held that a status can not be punished; it is referred to as the Robinson case where the court ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment to simply punish someone for being an addict; or as it was described a "status".  For instance, this would mean that you could not punish someone for being black for that would be punishing status, although they certainly didn't go that far.

What the court in Grant's Pass has done is declare that homelessness is not a status and so acts done by the homeless such as camping on a sidewalk can be criminalized; after all they may not be the only people camping on the sidewalk or in some other public place such as a family watching an eclipse or a protester protesting some injustice.  The case was brought under the Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, you know, such things as burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, dissection - - historical punishments like that.  Our founding fathers didn't much care for the idea of torture as punishment and therefore thought it might be a good idea to prohibit it.

So what the Court has done in Grant's Pass is to determine that putting someone in jail for camping on a sidewalk is not putting someone in jail for being homeless, but for camping on the sidewalk.  Now, of course, this logic is impeccable; how can you describe a Supreme Court decision in any other terms?  What's even more satisfying is that when you arrest a homeless person who has been able to accumulate enough property to actually survive out of doors without an actual abode, the property they have accumulated is either confiscated by the arresting authorities or taken by other homeless people to add to their own accumulated property.  In addition, the person being arrested and charged with the crime of trespass or whatever, will now have a fine, court costs, and jail fees none of which will be paid and hence cause the person being arrested to lose their driver's license if they actually were to have one since Iowa, and probably other States, take your drivers' license if you owe the State money and can't pay. 

The Court has simply recognized what most of us have already recognized: these people are simply nuisances and require management.  People with nice suburban houses don't want them around complicating things or peeing in their backyard.  After all, who wants some homeless person, loitering about either asking for money or looking pathetic - - not necessary.  At least in jail they will have food and a bed.  After all, what more could a person want or really need in life anyway.

So there you have it folks, our courts are coming to the rescue of us: the decent, law-abiding, tax-paying, home-owning people of America and we should applaud their efforts.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Literary Critic

  THE LITERARY CRITIC

Due to certain feedback, designating Iowa Senator Brad Zaun as our senatorial literary critic requires an explanation.  Senator Zaun publicly denigrated a published work by Maia Kobabe.  The book is titled GENDER QUEER and the Senator proclaimed it disgusting.

In attempting to analyze the Senator's literary analysis of the novel as "disgusting", one must keep in mind the Senator's frame of reference.  Frames of reference are often a beginning point for analysis and in the Senator's case, most appropriately.  In that the Senator has become one of the Iowa's Senate more notable literary interventionists, his views on what is acceptable and not acceptable in civil society should begin any commentary.

The Senator has not only approved, but, been a significant factor, in the past two years of legislative activity which includes book banning, restricting or eliminating diversity programs, regulating educational content,  correct bathroom protocol, etc.    These activities pretty well sum up the Senator's frame of reference.

To begin, Maia Kobabe is obviously a foreign name.  Now, to the Senator's mind a foreign name is one not derived from English, German, Scottish, Irish, Polish,  Italian languages. Other lesser known derivations of European languages will sneak in occasionally.  But clearly any name coming from the continent of Africa is foreign and the name Kobabe is certainly African of some sort.  Which sort is not important to our Senator.

Secondly, to our Senator's mind, gender issues are either the work of the devil or a communist plot.  And we all know his position on "queer".  The Senator has declared the book "disgusting".  This appears to be the extent of his literary criticism.  One would think that, as a literary critic, one could go into a little more detail and give us a basis for his opinion.  Of course, this would entail reading the novel - an exercise clearly beyond the Senator's capabilities.

We have a really good example here of judging a book without reading it which certainly saves time and effort.  The basis for the Senator's opinion is the title of the book and the name of the author.  Both are clearly un-American and un-Iowan which gives our literary critic license to dismiss the book as "disgusting"  viewing the title as disgusting and the author's name as extremely unorthodox. 

It really is a very good shorthand way of literary critique - - determining the quality of the work by the title and the name of the author.  I'm sure the Senator did not think this up on his own since this sort of analysis has been around as long as there have been books and once again is becoming a popular method of determining the value of a novel.

We can only hope that the Senator does not relax in his efforts of understanding our current literature.  It is important that we have people who will consider books as proper subjects of examination and critique and our Senator is setting such a good example that we need to applaud his efforts.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo