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.

- - - - - - - - -