Living with 290: Not above the law

No one is above the law. Punish me for the crimes I committed, but obey the law yourselves in doing so.

I was told they wanted to ask me some questions, just for basic information and said that I didn’t have to talk to them if I did not want to.

I could go outside, but then I could not come back inside, because they couldn’t have me going out and coming in while they were working.

This is their only pass at compliance with Miranda. From my own research, Miranda has been largely “emasculated” over the past 30 years by prosecutors whittling away at it and judges subsequently supporting them.

My question is what is the spirit and what is the intention of the law? Prosecutors still cling ever to slightly to the letter of the law, but I think they have been able to completely evade the spirit of it. It no longer provides any meaningful protection for defendants and suspects.

The effect of casting our conversation as being “the gathering of some basic information” implies to me that I should relax and talk to them, that it is not in the nature of an interrogation, and that, when in fact it was the only direct, basic and explicit interrogation I was given.

To lie to suspects is explicitly legal and is stated in specific statutes. I believe, my understanding, is that the FBI can lie to you, but you cannot lie to the FBI. So lying is fine and legal – for law enforcement, but there is the nature and effect of the lie.

Their tactics were specific: 1. To trick me into an interrogation 2. To confuse me and prevent me from even thinking about Miranda rights of remaining silent and having an attorney present. 3. To make me believe there was nothing relevant to my guilt or innocence that would be discussed.

So the intention and effect were to pay lip service to Miranda in the least possible sense and by the lie and trickery to prevent me from assuming my right to remain silent or have an attorney present. Why would I do either when they were asking me about who paid my gas bill at the house?

There is here always the intimidation factor: having 13 fully armed officers opposed to one me, unarmed. In my mind, I felt I must be completely respectful and cooperative or else they could at any moment just hand cuff me and take me to jail, perhaps while administrative matters were being worked out, and maybe punch me up a little bit in the process.

The intimidation is always that they could be worse than they are being, they could be tougher. You’re skating on very thin ice. For example, anything disrespectful you might say or do could probabilistically send them ballistic. It is the public’s common knowledge that the police often step over the lines of legality and then cover up for each other. It is the “unwritten code”.

Even my probation officer acknowledged that to me today, admitting that police misconduct is rampant, asking why can’t they keep these bozos in line? It’s people’s lives that are at stake here. He mentioned the common planting of evidence and a personal example of where they had questioned a nephew (unarmed) of his for 20 minutes recently and then shot and killed him.

Just like when I “complained” to him and then the next two days about 15 armed officers from federal and local detectives appeared at my house, proudly announcing they were there because “I had complained.”

Their response to my arguing legal points with my probation officer is to use goon tactics to illegally shut me up. And why should any one of them fear complaint? It is said the innocent have nothing to hide.

So it appears that while the law is being enforced against me, they are violating the law with impunity. And it has very little to do with my case personally. I am, after all, an elderly white male living in my own home. As you know, the police are undereducated, under trained, maybe underpaid and probably under intelligent and often emotionally unfit.

It is why Lee Baca is in prison, why sometimes they are held to account.

They have been ripping me for 3 1/2 years now with the zero tolerance policies in effect. I am in no mood to just say, well it’s ok. They just screwed up a little bit. It is a difficult job. Sometimes they “inadvertently go over the line”.

It is most certainly not “inadvertent” when they cross over the line and violate the law themselves. If this is the opposite of inadvertent, it is very vertent!

I very nearly went to prison for “going over the line.” I am in no mood to overlook the lawlessness of the law enforcers. Unless, of course, they want to admit that they hold me to a higher standard than they hold themselves.

That they themselves certainly cannot comply with any policy of zero tolerance. That those entrusted by the public to enforce the law violate it constantly themselves.

Everyone knows the corruption and subsequent cover-ups are part and parcel of our police culture. That perhaps nothing can be done about it. But my feeling is that I am in no mood to cower in the corner. If they violated the law, hold them accountable.

Don’t just pass over it because of culture or politics. They obtained my confession illegally, and it should be null and void. Their illegalities should result in my whole case being thrown out and my being reimbursed for money, time and reputation.

The last thing the judge said before entering plea was, “you have been given your rights …” seriously, that is testimony to what a farce they have made of Miranda, to put it down on the record ostensibly to cover or clear themselves for being in compliance – after the plea bargain had already been struck.

It just illustrates how fast and loose they play with the legal requirements placed upon them. How they bypass and disobey the laws that they don’t like, how they violate the law to enforce it.

I am trying not to appear indignant. I don’t really feel indignant. I am humbled by having largely paid the proper price for my crimes.

But they go to far. A person reaches a point where he feels, “What have I got to lose? I might as well give some pushback. I have gained nothing so far by polite and courteous cooperation with their bulldozer.”

Justice is based on the adversarial fight. A lot of what they did is great work. But that does not imply masking over their illegalities. There has certainly been no masking over of mine.

Behavior is indicative of people’s hidden feelings. Trump attacks the Mueller investigations because he has things to hide. Everyone can see that. He has been involved in violations of law.

So why is law enforcement’s profound and forceful circumventing or Miranda? It would ruin many of their cases if they complied with the law, as it is written. Their response is to push against the boundaries of judicial acceptability and comply as little as they can absolutely get away with.

Totally gone is the intention of the law to right the balance of power when suspect is up against police, detectives, prosecutors and judges. It is an all out power struggle, and they want to win it.

I guess I am fortunate that I was not an ethnic minority, homeless, blind, mentally retarded or just a habitually offensive person. But you know as well as I do Kate, what they do and how they are. And I guess they are beyond question, above the law, unaccountable for their conduct.

If you are naive enough to ever mention “your rights” their response is to laugh, scoff and turn up their noses as you.

The statuary non-evidence based placement of 311.11(a) offenders on a register to warn and protect the public is unconstitutional because it in effect punishes you specifically for crimes you did not commit.

There are boundaries and limits to crime prevention. Recidivism defines the traditional standards of observing and controlling future risk of crime. Now that concept has been exploded wherein you will be regulated and controlled on the basis that you might commit any of the entire range of sexual offenses, not just the one you were convicted of.

The register is hugely punitive and neither requires nor allows the admission of evidence in individual cases. Instead it, in my case at least, is based on a social theory that if you commit one crime, you are a legal risk of doing worse.

And it is interesting about that law is that no evidence in your favor is considered in terms of placing you on the register. But I am certain they would act swiftly to any evidence that might be against you. So they have you in a very neat box.

What is the obvious result of grouping various types and severities of crimes together into one group? You will be treated not only by the public, but also by law enforcement, as if you were the worst.

It is the technique used to persecute minorities throughout history. First declare them a risk to the public, and then protect the public. You don’t directly punish people for crimes they have not committed. That would be too obvious, maybe even for the fascists.

I am saying punish me properly for the crimes I committed. Obey the law in doing so, and don’t invent crimes I have not committed and muddy the waters all around it.

- - - - - - - - -

View all user submitted stories about Living with 290. Feel free to add yours - as a registrant, family member or friend. Please submit any updates on your story via the comments section on this page. Please use the comments below ONLY for input on the story on this page. To add a new story, click here.

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Miranda can be a bit tricky. For them to have to advise you of these rights you must be 2 things. one is “in custody”. The other is you must be being questioned about the crime you were taken into custody for.

Miranda rights always apply to everyone in the US. But the US has made it a requirement for lea to advise you of those rights prior to questioning. See the above 2 conditions. The police do not give you those rights. Scotus did. Basically they are tell you that talking to them is bad and you shouldn’t do it, but then we tend to do it anyway.

The spirit of the law is just so the public are aware that they are not required to tell the police anything. That does over simplify it because there are a few times when they may force the issue, such as if someone is missing, their life is in danger and i know where this person is, they can force the issue.

This is the one thing that stood out for me:

“But they go to far. A person reaches a point where he feels, “What have I got to lose? I might as well give some pushback. I have gained nothing so far by polite and courteous cooperation with their bulldozer.”

That is exactly what they are hoping you will do. Remember, how much you really do have to lose. It’s quite a lot.

Good luck

I had something similar. I was on probation and was questioned during what I was told was a probation home check and that failure to answer the questions would be a probation violation. The answers I provided were twisted to make me look like a predator. In truth, they were railroading me to get another conviction because there were some, including my probation officer, who were not happy that I had gotten community service and probation rather than jail time for a wobbler. The investigator from the DA’s office accompanying my probation officer wrote a report accusing me of a new crime, though his report was about 75% simply him giving an opinion of me rather than stating any kind of facts. The therapist leading the weekly sessions I attended to fulfill my probation requirements also wrote a report that included many blatantly false statements, including that I “quiet lately” and not participating fully in the group sessions (I was probably the one who was participating the most at the time). They were pursuing 26 years, including over 10 years of enhancements that were illegally applied. I had to push my public defender, the person who was supposed to be my advocate, for months to get her to petition to get the enhancements removed based on them not being legally applied in the case. Had I been able to afford a decent lawyer, we could have had the case dismissed, but instead, the end result, they got the pound of flesh they wanted. I spent 14 months in jail fighting the bogus case, then was offered time served or continue in custody and fighting a case in which I had no chance of winning regardless of the truth, possibly for several more years.

Yes, the assumed “fairness” of our legal system or “equality” of justice is false. There is nothing fair or equal about it. 1. They stack the charges to force you into a plea agreement so they don’t have to go to court., all the while pushing your legal fees higher and higher. 2. If you are a corporation’s criminal executive, your feloniously guilty corporation is allowed to sign a “consent decree” so now one is actually found “guilty” and you get off scott free. 3. No, the whole system is grossly disfunctional…. and no one (read: lawmakers) seems willing to make any effort to fix it. 😡

You seem to have a balanced view of this whole thing, and I am impressed with the way you’ve thought it out. One thing you missed though, which was pointed out above, but I will restate: Miranda absolutely doesn’t apply if you’re not in technical custody. When they told you that you could leave, but not come back, they were fending off any future court challenge. They were also pressuring you to stay and talk. But the fact that you were told you didn’t have to talk to them, and that you were free to leave at any time, is direct evidence that you were not in technical custody. When you’re not on probation or parole, you should never, ever, ever, talk to the police for any reason. Even if you are the victim of a crime. You first tend to your physical safety. Then you go see a competent lawyer. Then you and your lawyer go talk to the police together. And that’s only if you’re a victim. There is no other reason to speak to law enforcement, at any time, for any reason, other than that. Where this gets tricky is when you’re on paper. When you’re “free” but on probation, you’re technically still in the custody of law enforcement. That why they call it supervised release. You are required to answer certain, specific questions. And you should do your best to not piss them off or give them a reason to think you’re lying, or pushing back on them. You mentioned several times that you’d like to resist them in some way or another because what they did to you is unfair. While I understand exactly where you’re coming from, this is my advice: Do NOT do that. If you push back on these degenerates while you’re on paper, and you make them work harder, or feel stupid, or feel like you’re playing games with them……..They absolutely will make sure that you wind up in prison. And they may kick your ass along the way, just to let off some steam and let you know exactly who’s in charge. It used to be called, “Getting some stick time.” If you challenge them under normal circumstances, you’ll probably lose. If you challenge them when you’re on paper, and a registrant, you ABSOLUTELY will lose. I am giving you honest and accurate advice. I can’t say why in this public environment, but I am asking you to trust me. I know what I am talking about. Do not push them. You will not win. Be polite, professional, and say as little as possible. Don’t answer their questions with another question. They hate that. It’s also a clear indication of lying. If you answer a question with a question, it tells the cops that you’re buying time in your brain to come up with an answer that will satisfy them. Be short, direct, to the point, and friendly. They have the power. You do not. And you never will as long as you’re on paper. And to be totally honest, you never will again. If you feel like you’re being trapped during questioning, you still have the right to remain silent and seek the counsel of a lawyer. If you choose to exercise that right, you’ll likely take a ride to county jail. But if you haven’t actually violated, and you you don’t shoot yourself in the foot by talking too much, you’ll go right back out the front door. Remember: Talking to the police is what got you busted in the first place. Don’t make the same mistake twice, other than to say what is required of you. If I were smarter with the internet, I would add a link here. But I will describe it. You can search for it. And it will make better sense than my ramblings. Get on You tube and search” Don’t talk to the police.” The first one that usually pops up is a guy in a dark blue sport coat with a yellow tie. It’s about 45 minutes long. Watch it at least twice. Pay attention. This is a very well credentialed lawyer who is talking to a group of law students. Towards the end, he turns the mike over to a detective. The entire thing is very informative. Good luck; don’t cause trouble. You will lose if you do. Try to survive probation and then do the best you can to get on with your life.

As a husband whose wife demanded divorce that I refused, her counsel by local women’s more than equal “family” “protection” advisors encouraged her to claim I was having sex with our 4 year old daughter. I did severely hurt our first daughter with my anger and disrespect for both my wife and her. However, the charges leveled by a grand jury were based on the claims my older daughter made, assuming that I was harming my 4+ year old daughter by the same wife.

Sadly, again my irrational take-charge thoughts betrayed both my and our family’s best interests to resolve former damage and prove in court that no harmful acts were committed against any member of our family by me. Instead of believing that law enforcers have every intention to fool those they target into trusting them to actually mean they just want the truth, I made the first move and went to them months ahead of them charging me.

I said the facts. I did not know that law enforcers would take my freely provided statement made in good faith of their fair investigation and then force my 4 year old daughter into two years of training her to say key words that were then loosely, VERY loosely tied with other terms of my statement as somehow justifying their largely falsified charges. The court-supplied “defense” told me that had I not openly given the statement it was clear that he would have had no difficulty having the charges dismissed.

Well, if it means anything good, at least I can share the facts of my criminal court mishandling and the long years of family damage from all the lies and animosity caused by law enforcement more concerned with its public facade than fairly and justly enforcing justice that seeks the restoration of family and the truthful ownership of past faults and forming family peace rather than the trashed families and broken children in massive numbers covering the entire United States of America.

No, law enforcement is against peace, justice and the rule of Constitutional law. In fact, the un-elected law enforcement departments are given the ultimatum that they are literal paid militia whose sole objective is enforcing the political powers of the for profit corporation that their top boss, the mayor, dictates. Look it up. Private, for profit city “law enforcement” hired by their corporation CEO, the mayor, has no responsibility to the city citizens’ well being. Their sole duty is protecting the private, for profit city leaders.

Look it up