Why a juvenile record haunts you forever

Oftentimes, I hear people say things to me like, "It's just juvenile offenses, those don't count." Or "It's a juvenile record so it was supposed to be dropped off." There is a pervasive belief that a juvenile record doesn't count for anything once the kid turns 18. People believe that juvenile records are sealed & can't be used against them in the future. This is a dangerous misunderstanding, bc juvenile records can & do have significant consequences that can last for years.

How can a juvenile record affect someone? Let's review:

1. If the kid is 16 or 17 & charged with a felony, it's public information. It's not confidential, like other juvenile charges. Anyone can find out about it. So the stigma of being labeled as a bad kid/bad person can start very early.

2. Certain juvenile adjudications will have lifelong consequences. Adjudication is what they call convictions in juvenile court. Since juvenile offenses are "delinquency" matters, not crimes, a kid can't be convicted, just adjudicated. In theory... For example, if you get a juvenile adjudication for a felony level "crime of violence" at age 11, you are permanently prohibited from using or possessing a firearm. For the rest of your life. FOREVER. The only way to get that changed is to specifically request that the court grant you the ability to have a firearm again. So, at 11, you can say goodbye to any career goals you had that involved handling a firearm as part of the job. Can't be a cop, in the national guard, can't work in any capacity where you'd need to use a gun. At 11, your career options have already been limited.

3. Planning on working as a CNA, a PCA, a daycare provider, or even just a janitor at a hospital? Make sure you don't have juvenile adjudications (or even charged!) for any number of offenses, because the Department of Human Services will disqualify you from working in any position in any place where you might have direct contact with clients/patients. I.e., the janitor at a hospital. Got into a fight at school when you were 15 & got charged with misdemeanor assault? You're barred from working in those DHS background check required jobs for up to 7 years or more. Doesn't matter that it's not a public record, the DHS can still see it & still ban you. Depending on the charge, it can be a 7 year, 10 year, 15 year, or lifetime ban.

4. If you are a kid who gets charged with an offense that requires an adult to register as a predatory offender, be prepared to register as a predatory offender while you're a kid. And possibly into adulthood depending on how long your registration period is. Even if you end up adjudicated for a different offense that doesn't require registration, if it was from that same incident, you still have to register.

5. If you were adjudicated for two felony level offenses after age 14 & get charged with a felony as an adult under the age of 25, your juvenile adjudications give you a criminal history point, which means your adult sentence is now going to be more serious/severe.

6. In Minnesota, certain crimes are enhanceable. That means having a conviction for that type of offense will automatically make another charge for that offense more serious. So if you've already been convicted of a misdemeanor assault & you get charged with another misdemeanor assault, that now becomes a gross misdemeanor just because you have a prior assault conviction. If you have 2 of them, it becomes a felony, even if it would otherwise be a misdemeanor for someone else. But this doesn't just apply to adult convictions. If you were adjudicated for an assault as a juvenile (fight in school, for example) & then get charged with an assault as an adult, that juvenile adjudication will make the adult charge more serious. Instead of a misdemeanor, you get a gross misdemeanor charge because of your juvenile adjudication.

These are only some of the consequences of a juvenile record. It's simply NOT true that these records are sealed or expunged or dropped off or have not effect on someone after they turn 18. These records can & do follow a person around forever, even if they never get in any legal trouble again.

The more you know.

Let's Tone Down the Hysteria, It's Not Helping

I read this article today about local Minnesota communities passing restrictive city/town ordinances to prohibit Level 3 sex offenders from living within so many feet of various locations like schools, parks, etc. It's typically a knee-jerk reaction to a notification that a Level 3 offender will be moving into the community. And it's a problem.

First let's talk about the status of the law in Minnesota. Unlike many other states, Minnesota does not have a state law that restricts where someone convicted of a sex offense can live. There is a requirement to register the address(es) that the person lives at, the car they drive, the school they attend, etc. And if they are admitted to a hospital or something like that, they are required to notify the staff of their status as a registered offender. But they can live anywhere. There's nothing in state law that prohibits them from living next to a school or a park or whatever.

That's a good thing, despite what the general public thinks. We'll touch more on that in a minute, after we review more info about sex offense laws in Minnesota.

There are different levels given to certain people convicted of a sex offense, but those levels only are given to people who are sent to prison on the offense. So if a person is convicted of a sex crime & is given probation, they don't get assigned a level. There are 3 levels that the Department of Corrections gives to people before they are released. I don't know how the determination is made regarding what level someone is, but it is meant to label them based on how likely it is that they will reoffend in the future. Level 1 is least likely, Level 3 is most likely. I don't know how accurate those labels are, but it is the system the DOC uses.

When a Level 3 offender is going to be released back to the community, the community gets a notification about that person. They are given the name, age, and general location of where they'll be living & a general description of the crime they were convicted of. It's also possible to search for Level 3 offenders in a particular neighborhood on the BCA website.

Generally, Level 3 offenders have committed violent or multiple sex offenses or offenses against children. Not always, but in general. So when a Level 3 offender is released into a community after serving their sentence, the community usually flips out. They aren't exactly welcoming the person with open arms. Sometimes the person is targeted & attacked, other times they are vilified & harassed, sometimes people avoid them, etc.

But, communities, towns, & cities have started to create local ordinances that do what state law has refused to do--restricting where these people can live. The laws are meant to essentially prevent those offenders from moving into the locality. They are prohibiting a person from living within X feet of a park, school, daycare, etc. In the article, it also notes that the ordinance in Dayton also prevents them from living near an apple orchard or pumpkin patch or a bowling alley, among other places.

More and more ordinances like this are cropping up in Minnesota & it's a bad idea. In an effort to protect the public by passing these ordinances, the community makes it less safe.

First of all, Minnesota has a crazy amount of parks. Even the most podunk town is likely to have at least one within a stone's throw from it. So if the state law had geographical restrictions, these people would end up with no place to go.

Adding in other locations like daycares, school, pumpkin patches, etc. means that there are even fewer places available for these folks to live. Oftentimes, the ordinance effectively bans the person from living anywhere within the community.

Do these restrictions help? Well, according to this:

"The Minnesota Department of Corrections examined the 'sexual reoffense patterns of 224 recidivists released between 1990 and 2002 who were reincarcerated for a sex crime prior to 2006' and concluded that not one of the new offenses would have been prevented if residency restrictions had been in place."

Moreover, it goes on to say that:

"Study findings suggest that those with histories of any kind of criminal offense reintegrate more successfully when they are offered social support and opportunities to reintegrate into society through housing and employment."

And according to this article:

"Without exception, the longer offenders remain offence-free in the community the less likely they are to sexually recidivate."

And in this one:

"Empirical findings indicate that stable employment diminishes the risk for reoffending in sex offenders. A study conducted by Kruttschnitt, Uggen, and Shelton (2000) indicated that sex
offenders who were steadily employed were 37% less likely to reoffend."

"The best evidence linking housing stability and recidivism is found in a study of 81 child molesters(Willis & Grace, 2008): the authors identified housing as a significant predictor of sexual recidivism, even after controlling for other factors."

"With regards to social support, studies having evaluated the effectiveness of Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) indicate that social support is associated with decreased recidivism in sexual offenders."

So, empirical research shows that people convicted of sex offenses are less likely to reoffend if they have housing, employment, & the social supports provided by a community. But instead of taking the research & implementing it, locales have barred these folks from finding the very things they need to lower their risk.

They can't get a stable place to live bc of housing restrictions, causing some to have live under bridges. They can't employment bc they don't have a residence or a phone for employers to call them for an interview or the employer won't hire someone convicted of a sex crime. The ordinances prevent them from attending church or going to a bowling alley or otherwise join community groups since they can't be in or around those areas. Essentially the ordinances strip away every possible risk-lowering factor available, under the guise of making the public safer.

The Level 3 offenders that are released to the community are under strict supervision. Oftentimes it includes GPS monitoring, curfew restrictions, movement & travel restrictions, etc. They are heavily monitored during the time immediately following their release into a community. The studies show that the highest chance of recidivism is the first few years after release from prison & the longer the person is out in the community without new offenses, the more the likelihood of a new offense goes down. So, getting these folks steady & stable after their release, getting them employment, a residence, and involved in their community all works to make the community safer & the risk lower.

So the ordinances are poor solutions to prevent future offenses from those convicted of sex crimes. They create an environment where these folks are at an increased risk of returning to criminal behavior.

The Minnesota legislature was intelligent enough to not create these types of restrictions in state law. Local ordinances should not be allowed to counteract that decision.

Brock Turner & why judicial discretion matters

Recently I was talking about the Brock Turner case on Twitter & a friend asked me to discuss it more in depth in a blog post. So, as requested, that's what I'm discussing today. I take requests now!

So first up, some background details since my friend has actually missed all the hype about this case. Brock Turner was recently convicted of sexually assaulting a woman. Both he & the woman were (are?) in college. It was a pretty bad assault. Two other guys happened to come up on Turner digitally penetrating the victim while she was passed out behind a dumpster & in pretty rough shape. Turner tried to run away when the other guys came up, but if I remember correctly, one of them was able to catch him.

He went to trial & was convicted. After trial (and after most guilty pleas) the defendant usually goes through a pre-sentence investigation of some kind, where a probation agent meets with the defendant & gets info about them & makes recommendations to the court as to what an appropriate sentence should be. The court can follow those or not. In Turner's case, the recommendations were that he be given probation. The state was asking for prison time. The judge went with the recommendation for probation & sentenced Turner to 6 months in jail (he ultimately served 3) followed by probation. The judge noted that Turner was an athlete & that it would be detrimental to his future if he went to prison & that he felt like the probation recommendations for probation were more appropriate.

The entire online world subsequently lost its collective mind over this sentence. There are efforts to have the judge removed from office bc of his ruling in the case. California, where the case took place, passed a law just recently as a result of the case mandating a specific amount of incarceration for a conviction like this in the future, so as to prevent a judge from doing something similar in the future.

So, that's the background info that led to my Twitter conversation about the case. Now onto the discussion portion.

I'm very much in the minority on this, but I don't support the backlash against the judge in this case, or the effort to remove him, or the new law requiring incarceration. I firmly believe judges should have discretion to craft what they determine are appropriate sentences for people. I loathe mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums are a lazy way of handling the criminal justice system.

Mandatory minimums (referring to laws that require a mandatory minimum amount of time that has to be served if convicted of a specific offense) treat defendants like widgets on a factory line. Everyone gets treated exactly the same no matter what. In theory, that sounds great. No concerns about racism bc everyone gets the same sentence. No concerns about economic disparities bc everyone gets the same sentence. Etc.

The problem is that every case is different, every victim is different, every defendant is different, every set of circumstances is different. Yet mandatory minimums want to treat it as if every case is exactly the same. And the legislature makes mandatory minimums as a way of preventing a judge from making a thoughtful decision about a sentence. It's just, "well, you get this sentence bc it's a mandatory minimum." It's much more streamlined than actually parsing through information & making a decision. That's why it's lazy.

Let's do an example here of why mandatory minimums that treat everyone the same are problematic.

Scenario 1: A 29 year old man breaks into a home & violently assaults the people inside with a gun & gets convicted of a felony level offense for burglary & assault. Goes to prison, gets out. He has a long criminal history of violent offenses. Shortly after getting out of prison, he purchases from a friend a stolen gun that's been modified into a sawed off shotgun, which is illegal. He plans to go break in & assault another family. Because of his felony convictions, he's unable to use or possess a firearm.

Charge: Felon in Possession of a Firearm
Mandatory minimum: 5 yrs in prison

Scenario 2: An 38 year old has a prior juvenile adjudication for a burglary from when he was 14. No other prior criminal history other than his juvenile adjudication. Family man, working full time, went to college, etc. He has struggled with depression for most of his life & one day it gets into his head that he should end things. He tells his friend he can't take it anymore & is going to kill himself. He takes his friend's gun & leaves. Friend calls the police to prevent him from killing himself. Police manage to find him before he hurts himself. Unbeknownst to him, his prior juvenile adjudication makes him a "felon" for purposes of the Felon in Possession of a Firearm law. Therefore, he is unable to use or possess a firearm.

Charge: Felon in Possession of a Firearm
Mandatory minimum: 5 years in prison

Now, those are two very, very different defendants with very, very different facts in their cases. But the mandatory minimum law doesn't care. It requires that both of those men go to prison for 5 years. It makes no difference that one man had a violent criminal history & the other had one juvenile adjudication. It makes no difference that one man was going to hurt others & the other was suicidal. Mandatory minimums do not care.

And in many places, the judges cannot do anything other than give the mandatory minimum, regardless of the circumstances of a case. In Minnesota, judges can depart from the mandatory minimums, but it is the defendant's burden to show why the judge should & it's extremely hard to get the court to do it. In all my time as an attorney, I have only gotten one once unless it was a part of a plea agreement. The requirements are that the court give the mandatory minimum in almost all cases.

The problem is that people & cases are widely different. Not everyone should get the same sentence, even if it's the same charge. In an effort to treat everyone the same, the law has become extremely draconian & unfair.

Judges are in a position to evaluate the person as a whole & the case as a whole. They have the opportunity to hear from multiple people in the case, including the probation officer, the prosecutor, any victims, the defense attorney & the defendant. They get to see confidential info on the defendant, like medical records, mental health records, treatment records, etc. They get to decide what an appropriate sentence is for a particular defendant in a particular case after reviewing multiple pieces of information. A judge may decide that one person should receive a more lenient sentence than another person or a more harsh sentence. That's the role of judges, to decide the sentence. That's judicial discretion.

Mandatory minimums strip judges of their discretion. It doesn't matter what the facts are or what the information is. Everyone is given the same sentence, regardless of whether it's appropriate or not in a given case. It's a cookie-cutter solution to criminal justice.

I'm sure people will say that without mandatory minimums, people will "get off" or not have consequences. But mandatory minimums are a sledgehammer solution. In an effort to make sure no one who should get a harsh sentence avoids punishment, the laws end up hammering people who don't deserve that severe of a punishment.

Judges are supposed to use discretion. They are supposed to craft sentences they feel are appropriate for a particular case & particular defendant. If we continue to chip away at judges' discretion & force them to give everyone the same sentence regardless of the situation, we may as well just get rid of judges altogether, since we'll just be an assembly line justice system, fully automated, no need to review each case individually. And that is a scary way of doling out "justice."

I'm still hanging on

I'm still here. Still hanging on. It's not easy. Every day feels like a mountain to climb. But I'm still climbing. I don't really know why on some days but I do it.

I am still stuck in the sticks, which is soul crushing. But I do get to go to DNA training, which I've been wanting to do for awhile but didn't think I'd get the chance. Only a few of us get to do it & then we are supposed to help with others' cases involving DNA. So my boss wasn't sure if he wanted to burn a spot on me, knowing I don't want to stay in the area. I didn't expect that he would, although I really wanted to go. So it was a big surprise that he picked me as one of the people to go. It's pretty cool. I'm really excited about it. It's like one of the few silver linings I've got going for me lately.

I'm leaving for vacation tmrw, a road trip with my mom. Should be pretty good. Going to a couple national parks. It will be nice to get away for awhile. Maybe a change of venue for a bit will help brighten my mood, at least temporarily.

Thank you to all of you who have reached out in the comments to tell me you're thinking of me & sending good thoughts my way. It really means a lot. It helps me to feel less down. You all are the best. Thank you more than I can say.

The Right to Bear Arms, Part 1

I feel like discussing something other than my depression-induced misery, so in a change of pace, today's post is about gun control. Obviously, the recent tragedy in Orlando has brought this to the forefront of the national conversation again. Sadly, "again" has to be added to that sentence because these types of horrific incidents are all too common. Mass shootings in public locations have become par for the course. Go to a political event, run the risk of being shot & killed. Go to a movie, run the risk of being shot & killed. Go to college, run the risk of being shot & killed. Go to a nightclub, run the risk of being shot & killed. Go to the mall, run the risk of being shot & killed. Go to a place of worship, run the risk of being shot & killed. Even going to elementary school now comes with the risk of being shot & killed. Every public location seems to be fair game for people intent on shooting & killing others.

So the rallying cries of "citizens do not need assault rifles! Stricter gun laws needed!" sound from the left & "what we need is more people with more guns to shoot back! No more gun laws are needed!" sound from the right. It's an endless stream of the same things we've heard after every single one of these incidents. And ultimately, nothing ever changes because each side is beholden to the party line.

But something must change, unless we are willing to accept a routine mass shooting as payment for living in America.  The problem cannot be solved, however, until both sides are working with a correct understanding of what the 2nd Amendment is about. So let's start there.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It's not about protecting your home from an intruder. It's about protecting the citizens of the country from the government. Anytime you consider anything in the Constitution, it is important to remember that it was written by people who had lived under a government that they felt was unduly oppressive. It was written by people who had seen the lengths that oppressive government would go to in order to maintain its control & power over the citizenry. It was written by people who had seen the necessity to physically fight back in war against that oppressive government. It was written by people who feared a repetition of history by allowing the same conditions to develop again & allowing another oppressive regime to take power of the newly formed country. It was written by people who feared the government & who wanted to ensure that the citizens were protected from the government. That context is crucial in understanding any part of the Bill of Rights. It's why criminal defendants have so many rights, like a speedy trial, prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment, to confront their accusers, etc. Because historically criminal defendants were railroaded by the oppressive government & the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that couldn't happen in this newly formed country. It's why the federal government cannot quarter soldiers in your home. It's why police are required to get a warrant to search & why that warrant must specifically state what the police are looking for & where it is likely to be located. Fear of government drove the creation of the Bill of Rights. And that includes the 2nd Amendment.

The right to bear arms also mentions the need for a well-regulated militia. A militia isn't a hunting group. It isn't a home security system. It's a line of defense in case of war, almost always against one's own government. The right to bear arms means the right to physically fight back, if necessary, against the government. And that means that yes, citizens do need access to assault-style weapons. Because IF an armed conflict against the government were ever necessary, then the citizens need to be armed with the necessary weapons to fight back. If the government gets AK-47s & the government also says that the citizens can only have access to a 6-shooter, then the theoretical armed conflict is controlled by the government & the citizens have no chance at winning & an oppressive government gets to maintain its power w/o any way for the citizens to resist. The weapons need to be matched, the playing field needs to be level.

Is it a likely scenario that we'll ever come to an armed conflict against the government, a la the Revolutionary War? No. It's not. But that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd Amendment was written with that scenario in mind. It doesn't change the fact that the right to bear arms means the right to bear arms against an oppressive government as a last resort. The Founders attempted to achieve their goals in a peaceful manner through the proper channels in the government. When that failed, they declared independence from Britain. And when Britain came to keep the states from seceding by force, the citizens fought back. Sure, it was considered treason at the time. But they won, so it wasn't treason under the newly formed country. The fact that it's an unlikely scenario, that it's a last resort, doesn't change the reasoning for the 2nd Amendment. It is not meant for hunters. It's not meant for personal protection of your home against a burglar. It's meant to allow citizens to have access to weapons that would be needed in the event of an armed conflict against the government, should it ever come to that again.

To prohibit the citizens from having access to assault-style weapons is to permit the government to maintain its power & control over citizens. When the people in power are benevolent, there's no concern from the citizens about letting them have unchecked power. But when the power is unchecked, a benevolent leader can become, or be replaced by, a tyrannical one. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, should regular citizens have access to assault-style weapons & weapons used in war? Yes. Otherwise we stand no chance against a tyrannical leader using force against us to maintain control.

But do we need gun control laws? Yes. And that will be the discussion for the next post on this topic.

Barely functioning

I want to say thank you to everyone who has reached out since my last post. It may not seem like much to send a comment, but it means a lot to me, especially right now when I'm struggling so much to keep my head up. Hearing from you all, people who I don't know & almost surely will never meet, helps me to feel less like giving up. I cannot express how grateful I am for all your support.

I am trying to keep hanging in there. It's hard. It feels like a 10,000 pound weight on my chest most days. I want to curl up on my couch & cuddle Ward & Hubert & sleep & shut the world out. That's the easiest path, the path of least resistance. Getting up in the morning, getting dressed, going to work, being in court, counseling clients, working out, making dinner, running errands, cleaning the house...it all seems overwhelming most days. It seems impossible on some days. As if I've been asked to fly to the moon. It's easier to just give in & curl up & sleep.

Work has agreed to give me a 2 week reprieve on case assignments to help me feel less overwhelmed by everything. I don't think that a complete leave of absence would do me any good, since I'd just end up bawling on the couch all day & that would make me feel worse. But a slow-down would help. That way I still have a reason to get up in the morning but I don't have so much on my plate. I hope it helps me feel less like I'm in a sinking hole.

I have an appt w/ my doctor to review my meds & see if there's something better that I can be on to help with my symptoms. And I still see my therapist on a weekly basis. I'm doing what I can to try to stay afloat. But every day just feels like an insurmountable obstacle. It feels like nothing will get better & I will just spend my entire life pushing a boulder up a mountain. I try to tell myself it's just the depression talking, that it isn't true, that nothing can be bad forever. But logic goes out the window when depression is involved so it doesn't make me feel better to tell myself those things.

All I can do right now is go to work & then go home to sleep. I can't do anything more than hang on by my fingernails.

My absence

I've been gone for awhile without meaning to be. I've been grappling with some incredibly intense depression the last few months & trying to keep my head above water. I didn't get the federal PD job & things have not been going well lately. I've been struggling to put on a happy face & pretend I can make it through, but the truth is, I don't think I have it in me anymore.

The divorce almost broke me. That was a sudden, deep blow that almost snapped me in two. Lately, it's not a sudden blow. It's an accumulation of years of struggling & pain & hurt & disappointment. It's the weight of a thousand little hurts that are crushing me. It's my resolve to keep going, slowly fading away. Like an injured warrior, losing blood from wounds, trying to keep fighting, but eventually her body gives out & she can't go on anymore. That's how this feels.

The divorce was just the most serious of the wounds. Maybe if it was just that one, I could survive. But the emotional trauma started well before the divorce. I was damaged long before then. The divorce was just the deepest hurt.

So I have been gone, struggling just to keep going. I don't have anything left anymore. Every last ounce of strength I had is gone now. My reserves are used up. I have nothing left.

I don't have it in me to care anymore. I don't have it in me to keep trying & hoping for happiness. I won't find happiness. This is my lot in life. If I accept it, instead of hoping things will change, then I can't be disappointed when those hopes are destroyed.

That's why I've been gone. The last of my strength was going towards trying to hang on, trying to overcome the depression. And now, it's just swallowed me whole. And I'm not able to fight it anymore.

I am a shell of a person now. The world has sucked me dry and plucked out every good thing in me. I am now hollow & going through the motions of life.

It's #PublicDefenseDay!

Today is important but most people don't realize it. That's because today is the day that, 53 years ago, the US Supreme Court held that a person accused of a crime who could not afford an attorney must be provided an attorney. The case, Gideon v. Wainwright, was a landmark ruling.  Prior to that case, a person who could not afford an attorney was basically S.O.L.  They had to represent themselves against the full force of the government's power.  It was a modern-day David versus Goliath.  

Clarence Gideon's tale is not only notable for its creation of the right to court-appointed counsel, but also because the underlying criminal case demonstrated so perfectly why it was unfair to make a person proceed without counsel when they wanted one.  Gideon was charged in Florida w/ breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, after a local pool hall was broken into, vandalized, and burglarized my an unknown person.  A witness said he'd seen Gideon leaving the pool hall that night with money and wine in his pockets.  That was enough to get Gideon arrested and charged with the crime. 

Gideon appeared in court and requested an attorney to help him defend against the charges. At that time, only people who were charged with capital (read: death penalty) cases were able to have the court provide them with an attorney. When Gideon requested an attorney, the Florida court told him, in a nutshell, "No attorney for you!" (Imagine the Soup Nazi voice).  To which Gideon gave the most perfect, beautiful, and succinct response: " The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by counsel."  Sometimes the simplest answer is the best. 

However, Florida, being all Florida about it, still wouldn't give Gideon a lawyer. So, he had to represent himself at trial. And he did. He didn't plead out or plead no contest. He took that em-effer to trial and maintained his innocence the entire time. However, he was going up against a trained prosecutor, who had the full force of the government, police, etc. on his side and who had (presumably) gone to law school and had experience in trying cases.  Unsurprisingly, being outmatched, Gideon was convicted. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison. 

But our hero Gideon refused to give up. Instead, he took it upon himself to write a petition to the United States Supreme Court, arguing he had been denied due process of law by being forced to go to trial without the aid of an attorney, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.  He wrote the whole thing in PENCIL. By HAND. From PRISON. 

He toiled away at the prison library to be able to get this thing together.  It's actually fairly well written, despite some errors in grammar, syntax, etc. He did a damn good job. You can read the whole thing here. And you should--it's not that long and it's worth seeing how this one man's handwritten, penciled petition changed the entire legal landscape. 

And the US Supreme Court decided to hear his case. The Court gets hundreds of petitions a year and they get to choose which ones they want to hear.  There's only a small number of cases they are obligated to hear. Most of the cases that the Court hears are because the Court has determined it wants to hear them. And of all the cases that request a chance to be heard, the Court hears roughly 80 a year.  So, Gideon's chances of having his case heard by the Supremes was not high. Somehow, he hit the jackpot and got his case in front of the Court. 

Interestingly enough, almost as if they were tipping their hand a bit, the Supremes appointed an attorney to represent Gideon at the Supreme Court.  That attorney was Abe Fortas.  Fortas later went on to become a Supreme Court justice himself. 

On March 18, 1953, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Gideon's favor.  The Court held that the State of Florida had violated Gideon's rights by refusing to appoint him counsel and remanded his case back to the Florida court for further action in line with the Court's new ruling.  The Court's decision impacted every criminal defendant in the United States, not just Gideon.  The Court had said that assistance of counsel by a person who wanted it but could not afford it was a fundamental right under the US Constitution and that providing attorneys to indigent defendants was essential for a fair trial and due process of law.  That meant no one accused of a crime who couldn't afford a lawyer could be forced to defend him or herself without the help of an attorney. 

TADA! Creation of the "public defender." 

So, back to our story...Gideon's case was returned to Florida and since he was deprived of a fair trial the first time around, he was given a new trial.  This time, with an attorney to represent him. And you know what happened??? 

Ready??

Want to know????

Gideon was found...


NOT GUILTY!  Of the very same charges he was previously convicted of and sent to prison for 5 years! Because his attorney--his court-appointed attorney--was able to discredit the only witness during cross-examination and destroy the State's case. And the jury took only one hour to acquit Gideon. 

Five years in prison to a complete acquittal.  Same charges, same case, same witness.  The difference? An attorney. 

Gideon's case illustrates the reason why the Supremes ruled the way they did.  Because it's fundamentally unfair to make a person have to defend themselves in court without help against a criminal charge against a trained, experienced prosecutor.  And if the playing field isn't fair, then the results get skewed. As in Gideon's case. He was unable to effectively defend himself, but once he had help, he was acquitted and walked out of prison. 

It's a great story. It changed the entire criminal justice system, for the better. And, the original case shows why legal counsel is so necessary. No one would perform their own surgery--why make someone perform their own legal defense?  Both are technical, complicated worlds that don't often make sense to outsiders and that have a language all of their own. And both have serious consequences if done poorly or incorrectly. 

So, Gideon's case left a lasting legacy for all criminal defendants. The full force of the law and the faceless government could no longer overrun the little guy. Now, the little guy got to have their own fighter to get in the ring and throw some punches. 

Are the sides perfectly, evenly matched? Of course not. The financial disparity between the two sides is stark in many places. But, even if it's not a perfectly level playing field, it's better than it was. And those of us who are here, in the ring, throwing punches against the giant Goliath that is the government are doing it because we want to, because we love the fight, because we love the thrill of victory against the enormity of the State, because we like helping the underdog, because we care. 

Society as a whole doesn't particularly like us. We represent "criminals" and "bad guys." We get people off on "technicalities" (also known as "your constitutional rights"). We stand beside the loathsome, the unwanted, the overlooked, the reviled, and we fight for them. Society doesn't understand how we can sleep at night, defending people like those in Gitmo or people accused of child rape or murder or any number of terrible crimes. They don't get it because they don't understand it's not just about this one client, this one case, or this one charge. It's about more. It's about upholding the idea that we live in a country that values fairness and justice.  That we would rather have it done right.  That we uphold and protect the things our ancestors fought and died for, that the Constitution was created for. 

I am proud to be part of a group of people who defend those that society reviles.  I am in good company. John Adams defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre and Abraham Lincoln defended many people charged with murder*.  If I get to be in the same ranks as those people, I am proud.  

I am proud to be a part of Gideon's legacy. I am proud to stand by my clients and step into the ring to throw some punches. I am proud when I get a TKO on Goliath.



*You can read more about how public defense is awesome in this editorial over at Slate.com. 

Time to make some changes

I've decided I need to move. I have lived in rural town for almost 3 yrs & it has not been a good move for my mental health/depression issues. So it's time to do something to make myself happier. And that means moving back to a location closer to my friends & family.

The commute will suck, since it will double my drive time. But I think it will be worth it to have my social life back again. It will be worth it to not feel so isolated & alone.

When I moved to my current location, I had a car payment that ate up a big chunk of money. I paid my car off last year, so I don't have that expense anymore & that means I can afford more for rent. So that frees me to move.

I found a place I'm interested in. There aren't any open units right now, but it sounds like there will be in the future. And that will give me time to pack, etc.

Having a plan to move makes me feel less trapped by my life. It makes me feel like there's a light at the end of the tunnel. And eventually I.hope to get a job near the metro, too. But until then, I can at least live somewhere that makes me happy.

Also I finished my couch! Here's the final result:

The biggest project I've ever done!

So I have had my couch for about 10 yrs & it looks like it. The cats have torn the sides & arms up, so the foam is coming out. I want a new couch, but I don't have the money & I don't want the cats to rip up a new one. So, I decided I should just re-upholster the couch. I've never re-upholstered a single thing in my whole life, so of course why not start with a super big piece of furniture & the only piece in my living room?? Sounds reasonable!!

To the internet I went, in order to find out what it takes to redo a couch. New fabric. Some stuffing to redo the spots that the cats have torn out. Thread. Ability to sew. Staple gun. Really the only thing I didn't have was a staple gun.

But whoa, the amount of fabric needed for the project was huge & upholstery fabric isn't cheap. I could just buy a new couch for the cost of the fabric. After a little more internet searching, I found out that canvas painter's drop cloths are a cheap way to get a lot of fabric! Who knew?? Canvas isn't the softest but for a couch I figured it would be fine.

However, the canvas comes in beige & I'd decided I wanted a robin's egg blue couch. Which meant I needed to dye the drop cloths. This is not a small task. I used 12 bottles of Rit dye & 3 packages of powdered dye. I had to go to 4 different stores to get enough dye. Then I had to dye all the fabric in my bathtub since I needed a container big enough to hold 36 gallons of water. And then I had to make sure the fabric was constantly in motion, so it didn't get streaks or dye unevenly. It was a weird night, me with a big ass wooden dowel, standing over a bathtub full of water that is so dark it's almost black, stirring away for like 45 minutes. But, it was worth it! The color came out exactly the way I wanted it to & looked great!

I next tore off the fabric from the couch cushions & seats & used the old fabric as the pattern for the new fabric. I took the brown piping from the old fabric & recycled it on the new fabric bc I thought the blue & brown would go great together. So I did the cushions & the seats.

I don't want the cats to tear up the new fabric, so I did some additional research & found out that they sell vinyl sheeting that you can attach to your couch so the cats can't scratch the fabric. Good idea, except it looks really obvious that you have plastic on your couch. I love my cats, but I'm not ready to clearly announce that I'm a crazy cat lady to everyone that comes into my apt. I mean, I'd like to date someone again, so... I had to come up with an idea.

Which became taking the vinyl sheeting, sewing it to a contrasting piece of fabric on the back, & then spraying the front with a clear coat that takes away some of the shine. Those pieces then get attached w/ brass furniture tacks like you see in fancy leather furniture. That way, the vinyl sheeting looks more like it actually belongs on the couch, rather than something I added on.

I'm almost done with the couch. But I need a staple gun to complete the project. And I don't want to spend money to buy one so I can use it for one project.  So, I asked Guy if I could borrow one from him. (Yes, Guy & I still talk. Story for another day.) I just wanted to borrow the gun, so I offered to pick it up & bring it back if he could loan me one. He asked why I needed one, I told him my plan, & he offered to come help me. I told him he didn't have to, but he said he wanted to & he'd bring 2 staple guns so we could get it done really quick. So next Saturday, he's coming over to help me finish it up.

I've got the cushions & seats done & the vinyl pieces are ready to be attached once it's time. I'm super excited about the way it's looking so far & really excited about how it will look when it's all done. It's going to look so awesome! And so much more affordable than buying a new couch.

Pictures of the project so far are included. I'll post a picture of the final project when it's all done!

Scalia was a strange character

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died yesterday. He's been an outspoken force on the Court for as long as I've been interested in the law (late high school/early college) and most everyone who is somehow in the legal world has an opinion of him. Many people not in the legal world do, too.

Scalia was an interesting character in the Court. Oftentimes, I found myself frustrated & disgusted with things he said or wrote. He was a phenomenal writer, even when I wanted to scream bc I disagreed with him so strongly. But I was often at odds with his position on issues & I never counted him among my favorite justices (yes, I have favorites...RBG, I'm looking at you). His social views were appalling to me & I found much of his opinions lacking in any sense of empathy or feeling.

That being said, I cannot deny that some of the most important decisions in the realm of criminal law have been from Scalia. Before Scalia, the Confrontation Clause was essentially meaningless. The Confrontation Clause is the part of the Constitution that says if you're accused of a crime, you have the right to face your accusers in court & make them answer questions. In the past, it was permissible for hearsay statements to come in as evidence against a defendant if the judge determined the statements were reliable. No live testimony needed, just a submission of the statements. Scalia wrote the Crawford decision, which ended that practice. If someone is accusing you, you have the right to make them do so under oath & subject to cross-exam. The importance of Crawford can't be overstated. It changed the way trials & courts operated in a major way.

Scalia is also the reason that an actual scientist/lab person now has to come into court & testify about their results, rather than just submitting a report & calling it good.

Scalia was also a staunch supporter of the 4th Amendment & had a hearty distrust of the State as an actor bc the Founders had that same distrust. He often reminded the judiciary that judges are part of the State & that's why a jury is so important, bc they are NOT agents of the government. He wrote a brilliant dissent in Maryland v. King about the collection of DNA samples from people arrested for crimes but not convicted, in which he skewered the majority for trusting that the government would keep its word & limit the use of such DNA.

Scalia was a justice that I often felt was lacking in compassion & mercy, that was too hard-lined for my taste, and whose social views I absolutely hated. But I cannot completely vilify the man bc he also was a champion of the 4th Amendment & the Confrontation Clause, which are extremely significant legal areas.

I hope that whoever replaces him upholds the good things Scalia brought to the Court while also doing better in areas that Scalia was lacking.

So exciting!!!

I have a first-round interview w/ the federal PD office!!! I'm so over the moon that they are even interested in me enough to want to interview me. It would be absolutely incredible if I were to get the position. Even if I don't, being picked for an interview with the feds is SO cool!

Here's hoping!

More about DWI cases

To the person who wrote me a recent comment that I'm not going to publish, I want to say thank you so much for what you said. It was really touching & lifted my otherwise-rather-glum spirits. Thank you for taking the time to reach out & tell me your thoughts. It meant a lot.

In rather exciting news, a case from Minnesota has been picked up by the United States Supreme Court!!! This is probably the closest I'll ever get to being at SCOTUS, so I'm nerding out about it. It's even a case I've talked about to you all! It's the Bernard case involving whether or not the state can make it a crime to refuse to submit to a dwi test. I've voiced my opinion that I think it's wrong to charge a person with a crime for not consenting to a search. And the law in Minnesota on this topic continues to be a moving target. The court of appeals recently held that the state cannot make it a crime to refuse to provide a blood sample. The Bernard decision had dealt with breath samples--it's ok for the state to charge you with a crime if you refuse a breath sample.

So, presently, here's what we know on this topic:

If you're arrested for a dwi & refuse to provide a breath sample, you can be charged with test refusal.

If you're arrested for a dwi & refuse to provide a blood sample, you can't be charged with test refusal.

If you're arrested for a dwi & refuse to give a urine sample, who the hell knows? The courts haven't decided this yet.

To make the cluster even more fucked, the statute says that if a cop first asks for a blood sample & the person refuses, a urine or breath test must be offered instead and if a cop first asks for a urine sample & the person refuses, a blood or breath test must be offered. So you can refuse some tests but not others & some we don't know if you can refuse & sometimes the cops have to offer you a different test which you may or may not be able to refuse.

So. That's fun. Good luck trying to understand that mess.

The right to refuse the blood test causes the most trouble for drug-dwi cases, when it's not alcohol that's the issue, it's drugs. Unlike alcohol, you can't smell it on someone & it doesn't show up on a portable breath test. And many of the "possibly high" indicators are also "possibly medically related" indicators. I had a dwi case once where the police thought it had been drugs, but turned out the guy had had a seizure. Slow cognition, droopy eyelids, confusion, garbled speech...hard to say what causes that without a tox screen of the blood. And any defense attorney with half a brain would be able to get a case like that either outright dismissed or to win at trial if there's no proof of any drugs in the person's system. In the past if a person refused to give a blood sample, they'd still get charged with a crime for refusing. (The most ridiculous parts of the test refusal statute are that 1. The penalty for refusing is almost always more severe than failing the test, so ACTUALLY DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED is less serious than not giving a sample and 2. Yo can be charged with & convicted of a dwi-test refusal even if you were 100% sober. So combine those two stupid things and you wind up with the possibility that a completely sober person who values their civil liberties & refuses to consent to a sample gets a gross misdemeanor dwi-test refusal charge with the possibility of a year in jail, while an actually intoxicated person driving with a BAC of .15 gets charged with a misdemeanor dwi with the possibility of 90 days in jail. Way to keep our roads safe, legislators!!!!)

The easiest fix to all of this is to just make cops get a warrant for a blood, breath, or urine sample. Then there's no arguments to be had about the test refusal law & what type of tests you can or can't refuse, etc. When I get a case w/ a warrant involved, my immediate reaction is, "well shit" bc most of the time, that will prevent any 4th Amendment arguments about unlawful searches or seizures. All that terrible, horrible, damning evidence that tanks any case we may have gets to all come in. And the thing I challenge the most during pretrial hrgs is warrantless searches (and not to brag, but I win a lot of those, too. Bc I'm a badass.). So, the quickest & easiest way to head off all these issues w/ dwi tests is to just get a damn warrant authorizing the police to collect a blood, breath, or urine sample.

However, the police & the state & the courts strongly dislike this option. Dwi cases make up a large chunk of criminal cases. And the state gets a shitload of money on the cases. On a misdemeanor dwi case, you can expect a $300-400 fine, $80-85 in "court costs" (aka your fee for using the court system), a $25 alcohol assessment fee (which goes to the state and not to the place where you get an alcohol assessment done), and a $680 license reinstatement fee. That's a lot of money. And it goes up from there. If your test is high enough, you pay the state $680 and you have to get an ignition interlock device installed in your car, which is a few hundred dollars & get the device read every month, which costs at least $100 each time. So, dwi cases are cash cows.

Yes, yes, I realize that drunk driving is a problem & people get hurt or killed. In law school one of my roommates was t-boned by a drunk driver & almost didn't make it. She ended up in a coma for 3 months & had yrs of rehab & still has ongoing problems from it. So I GET IT.

Still, dwi cases are a bankroll for the state. And if the police were required to get warrants, that would slow them down, although with the availability of telephone warrants now, not that much. And it's inconvenient. A lot of dwi arrests occur after bar close or on the weekends. Judges don't want to get constant 3:00 a.m. phone calls to issue warrants.

The fact that it's inconvenient or slows things down doesn't trump the 4th Amendment. At least, it shouldn't. And the courts have said that in the past. But when it comes to dwi cases, that doesn't seem to matter.

So, the answer to the problems w/ the test refusal cluster is "get a warrant" but since the legislature & courts don't like that solution, we get a giant mess. But now that SCOTUS has the Bernard case, hopefully we'll get some clarity.

Staying afloat

To start, a message for the people who have been leaving me hateful/hurtful comments lately--1) I have comment moderation turned on, so I have to approve your comments before they actually get posted, so no one will ever see your mean words because I'll never approve them. 2) If you dislike me so much, stop reading my blog. Seems fairly simple to me. 3) I actually don't care whether you approve of me or not, so if it means that much to you to say awful things anonymously via the internet, knock yourself out. Seems extremely petty to me, but you do whatever you need to make yourself feel better. 

Moving on...

As I've expressed on here, I'm struggling with my depression pretty badly lately.  I've had my medication dose increased and I've been doing the stuff to try to help myself through this rut--doing things that make me happy like sewing and painting and drawing, spending time with my friends and family, listening to/watching stand-up comedy, working out and eating well, etc. It's definitely better than when I was last going through a serious bout of depression, during my divorce, when all I did was sleep and work and cry and wake up every morning wishing I had died in my sleep.  So, on the positive note, I have learned from my divorce-induced depression stage how to cope with my depression periods much better and how to take care of myself during these periods. At least that's one positive. 

That being said, I really think I need to make a change and get out of this location I'm currently in. I don't particular enjoy living in rural Minnesota, especially when almost all my friends and family live rather far away from me. I would much prefer to live in the metro area. And I think I need to live in the metro area closer to the people I love in order for my mental health to be stable. I feel like if I can get back to the metro, my mental health situation will be much better. Of course,e I'll deal with depression no matter where I'm living. It's just part of who I am, like my thyroid condition or my hypersomnia.  It's just a part of me. I know that I will have difficult periods in the future. But I also know that certain things can aggravate my depression and make it much harder to cope. And one of the major things right now is that I live so far away from people that I care about and that I live in a location that I don't want to be living in. I don't enjoy living in rural areas. I like the city. I feel happiest in the city. 

I live out here because of my job. I love my job and I love my office and the people I work with. I have a fantastic group of people that I am lucky to not only have as co-workers, but also as my friends. I know that I have been extremely fortunate to have these people in my life. But, the only thing I have out here is work and that's not what I want my entire life to be about. Of course, being a public defender is a huge, important part of my life that I wouldn't want to give up, but it can't be the only thing in my life. And right now, it is. Because everything else is too far away. So, I need to be back in the metro. I need to be closer to my family especially. My poor mental health is affecting my ability to do my job, because I am having a hard time focusing on some days and I have difficulty lately feeling motivated. I don't get the same excitement about stuff the way I typically do when I am not dealing with feeling depressed.

Getting out of rural Minnesota is a necessity at this point. All I want to do is be a public defender and also be closer to my friends and family. I don't want to have it be either work or the rest of my life. I want the areas of my life to be in harmony together. 

In the meantime, I am working on trying to keep my head above water and not give in to the sadness and hopelessness that comes with depression. I am trying to make it through each day. 

I can't settle

I've been trying out online dating again, because apparently I like to torture myself. Dating is miserable & I hate it. Online dating is especially miserable. I have gone on a few dates & I'm pretty much over it now.

One date told me I should be more of a girly-girl. I'm pretty happy with the level of "girly" that I am, thanks. I like to look good, paint my nails & do my makeup & my hair, I like cute clothing, & I own a fair amount of pink items. I also have a sailor mouth, love a good dirty joke, & can't resist a perfect opportunity for a "that's what she said." I am a sassmouth with opinions & I'm brash & I am smarter, sharper, & wittier than most guys. If it freaks them out, too damn bad. I am who I am & I'm not going to be more girly just to appease some insecure dude's ego.

Quite a few guys talked to me online but never actually asked to meet in person. I don't ask men out first. It's my litmus test for their personality. I'm a very strong personality when my initial shyness wears off. If a guy can't get it together enough to ask me out first, he's quite likely going to be a pushover. I need & want someone who can match me in having a strong personality. I've dated guys who aren't a match in that sense & I end up dominating the entire relationship & lose interest in him. So, I never ask men out first.

Another date went decently enough, but there was zero chemistry between us. He was nice & funny & attractive enough, buy I wasn't attracted to him physically or mentally. No spark, no draw, no chemistry. I can't date someone I have no chemistry with. It just feels dull somehow.

In both my relationship w/ YKW & Guy, there was immediate, intense chemistry, and both parties felt it. It was intoxicating to be with them, it made me giddy to have any interaction with them, & I felt dizzy with emotion. I need to have that in a relationship. Of course, that's not enough to sustain a relationship, it takes more than just chemistry to make it work, but I do need that to start a relationship.

People tell me it's extremely rare to have that w/ someone. I know this. I also know that I've been incredibly lucky to have had it twice in my life. But I also know that having experienced it means that I can't settle for anything less. I can't grow into liking someone. I can't develop it after we've been dating for awhile. If I meet someone & the spark isn't there, I'm not dating them. Period. End of story. It's there or it's not.

People tell me I am being unrealistic, that I shouldn't rule someone or just because there's no immediate spark. But I've dated guys in the past that I didn't have a spark with & it's just...flat. Having experienced that spark, anything less feels like listening to a symphony w/ ear plugs in, like touching something with gloves on. It's diluted, dulled, blunted, less enjoyable & less satisfying. Sure, I might still be able to hear the symphony to some extent or get the general feeling of something w/ yr gloves on. But it's significantly diminished. And it's a poor substitute.

I don't want a diminished substitute relationship. I don't want to settle for anything less than the full richness, the full experience. I know this is rare to find it, especially for a third time. And I realize I'll likely be alone because I won't take anything less. But I'd rather that than settle.

Hello Darkness, my old friend

My depression is in full-swing currently. It's misery every day lately. It's not just bc of Guy, although the breakup did initiate this period of depression. It's everything. I realized yesterday that if I could start over at 18, I would redo every major decision I've ever made in my life. I would choose differently every single time. That realization has made me feel even more depressed, bc it means my entire adult life has been a waste. I wouldn't go to law school. I wouldn't be a lawyer. I wouldn't date or marry YKW. I wouldn't date Guy, either in college or this time around. I wouldn't have moved out to the sticks. I wouldn't have taken a job out in the sticks. Literally every single major decision I've made, I would redo it by not doing it at all. Everything I thought would happen, everything I wanted my life to be, it hasn't worked out bc all the decisions I've made were wrong.

My life feels useless right now. I feel like my entire existence is pointless presently. Objectively, I know it's not true. I can remove myself enough from the emotional wreck that I am to look at things objectively & realize that objectively, there are things I do that matter & people who care about me. But logically knowing that & feeling that are two separate things. I do not feel like that, no matter how much I may objectively be able to know that. And it's the feeling that's killing me.

I've read somewhere that depression feels like drowning but seeing everyone else breathe. But that's not been my experience. For me, it's like slowly have your air supply cut off, rather than the abrupt suffocation of drowning. It's like being in a room where the air is slowly running out, a little bit at a time, so that it takes awhile for the suffocation to occur. So that you have time to really feel it creeping up on you, really feel it leeching away your ability to keep going. It's not a fast thing, but a painstakingly slow & drawn out thing. And as it happens, you know it's happening & it feels like there's nothing that can be done about it. So you either resign yourself to your fate of slow suffocation or, in some cases, you speed up the process & end things. That's not my option, but I certainly struggle with the first option, simply resigning myself to my fate, accepting that things will never get any better, believing that it will always feel like this. It's hard not to, bc that's what the slow suffocation does--it chips away at your strength, a little at a time. If it were drowning, you'd fight furiously to save yourself. But when it's slow & insidious, it's harder to fight. It's already gotten a hold of you by the time you realize it and it's already stolen away pieces of your strength.

So that's where I am at right now. Struggling against the slow suffocation that is my depression. Feeling like it's hopeless, feeling like my efforts will be pointless. Feeling like I am resigned to my fate. It's a bleak place bc it feels like it will never change. Even if I can objectively tell myself that it eventually will. It's the feeling that's hard to overcome.

All aboard the struggle bus

Hey guys, guess what? I bet you'll be totally surprised when I say this, but I'm not at all happy lately. Shocker, eh? Oh, right, no, not at all. That's basically my usual state.

I try really hard to not feel this way. I really do. But I always seem to end up back here for some reason. Like my life is destined to be a horrible suck-fest no matter how hard I try. I hate it. I hate that I can't get out of this.

Lately, it's pretty much my entire life that's dragging me down. I hate wear I live right now so much. I thought I could handle it but it's been way harder than I ever imagined it would be. I'm miserable here. Miserable. I am not exaggerating when I say that I feel like living here is slowly killing me. I love my job, but even that isn't enough anymore to keep me going. If I don't get out of here soon, I'm going to lose it. I'll just be a sad, pathetic shell of myself.

I'm doing everything I can to change things but nothing is working so far. I don't know what I'll do but I know I can't do this much longer.

Unpopular opinion

Recently Adele came out with a new single, "Hello," and the world collectively lost its mind. Everyone was singing its praises & expounding on how it left them in tears. I loved her first 2 albums. 19 & 21 were my "sing at the top of my lungs & bawl" albums when I was heartbroken about the divorce. She captured my feelings so eloquently. I haven't been able to listen to either album since then bc it brings back such powerful feelings for me. Which made me sad bc I loved them so much, even before the divorce. I loved her sound since the moment I heard "Rollin in the Deep." It was so unique & interesting & THAT VOICE!!

So I was happy to hear that 25 was coming out, bc then I could have a new Adele album to love that wasn't soaked in memories & emotion. But, I didn't want to listen to "Hello" right away. I was worried it would make me think of Guy & then that breakup would ruin this album for me. So I purposely didn't rush to listen to it. But one morning I heard it on the radio & decided to not change the station. Her voice was flawless, of course, & the song was beautiful, as expected. But I hated it. I hated it bc the lyrics enraged me as I listened to it.

"Hello" is the most selfish, inconsiderate, self-absorbed song I've heard. And that's why I hate it.

At first, it's ok, the selfishness is not immediately apparent:

"Hello, it's me
I was wondering if after all these years you'd like to meet
To go over everything
They say that time's supposed to heal ya
But I ain't done much healing.

Hello, can you hear me?
I'm in California dreaming about who we used to be
When we were younger and free
I've forgotten how it felt before the world fell at our feet.

There's such a difference between us
And a million miles."

Aww that seems so heartbreakingly sweet. So far, so good, pretty, sad, everything you want from Adele. Then, the chorus comes & it's all over:

"Hello from the other side
I must've called a thousand times
To tell you I'm sorry
For everything that I've done
But when I call you never
Seem to be home."

Oh. I see. You broke my heart & now, years later, you want to come back & tell me how sorry you are & talk about how great things were when we were together. Sorry you've got buyer's remorse now, but what makes you think I want to hear from you after all these years?

"Hello from the outside
At least I can say that I've tried
To tell you I'm sorry
For breaking your heart
But it don't matter, it clearly
Doesn't tear you apart anymore."

Seriously??? First off, you're only interested in apologizing if I'm still all broken up about the shit you pulled on me years ago? How about you apologize because you want to be a decent person? Second off, you expect me to still be a mess over you after all these years? You legit think you are that fantastic that someone is going to be torn up about you after you crapped on their heart & after yrs have passed? You really think you're that special?

The song goes on with similar lyrics & the entire time I am just turned off & disgusted by it. It's such a dick song, couched in Adele's soaring vocals & heartfelt tone so you don't realize how much of a bitch it makes her seem. And it works--people LOVE this song. They cry over it. I'm pretty much the only person who hasn't fallen in love with this song. Because as long as the lyrics are sung with emotion & the music matches that, people don't care what the song is really about.

Don't believe me? Many yrs ago, Blues Traveler wrote a song exactly about this concept. It's called "Hook." It's a great song, full of emotion, and people didn't realize he was singing about how everyone is suckers. And he pulls no punches, starting the song by telling you exactly what the deal is:

"It doesn't matter what I say
As long as I sing with inflection.
That makes you feel I'll convey
Some inner truth or vast reflection
But I've said nothing so far
And I can keep it up for as long as it takes
And it don't matter who you are
If I'm doing my job then it's your resolve that breaks."

Later in the song he even says:

"There is something amiss
I am being insincere
In fact I don't mean any of this
Still my confession draws you near."

But that song blew up & I challenge you not to get some emotional response to it, even knowing it's about how you a giant sucker.

So, in sum, "Hello" sucks & it's a dick song & no one realizes it bc it's hidden in the music.

Moving forward

Well, I had my first post-breakup date today. We met for coffee (I had hot chocolate) at 11:00 this morning. It went pretty well overall, although there weren't any sparks flying. He was nice & friendly & we had a good conversation. I wasn't super impressed with his clothing choice, since he showed up in a track jacket, running pants, & a baseball hat. I mean, we were just going for coffee so I didn't expect a suit or anything but he looked like he'd just rolled out of bed. And when he'd take his hat off, it looked like he either hadn't showed at all that day or he had showered & then put his hat on while his hair was still wet. So, his effort into his appearance was marginal at best. But he was nice & there wasn't any weird awkward silences. There wasn't any real chemistry there, though.

I might be spoiled bc with both Guy & YKW, there was this intense physical & mental attraction to the other person, where I found the attraction I had for both of them to be almost intoxicating. I was starry-eyed around both of those two, so I want that again. I want to be with someone who I'm intensely attracted to, both mentally & physically. This guy today wasn't unattractive, despite his terrible clothing selection. He was decently attractive. But there wasn't any spark, no chemistry, no intense attraction. Just like talking to a friend.

I don't know...is it typical not to have that intense draw to the other person? Do people just like the other person a lot & find them decently attractive & think it's good? Did I just manage to get extremely lucky to have found not one but two relationships w/ someone who I'm overwhelmingly drawn to & he, to me? Maybe it's not the norm to feel that way? Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned w/ that since neither of those relationships worked out. Maybe I should be more focused on finding someone who is stable, rather than finding someone I'm drawn to so intensely? And since I'm getting older, not younger, maybe I can't expect to have that sort of attraction with another person? I don't know.

The point is I made it through my first date and that's a big deal. I wish I could say that it meant that I was over Guy, but I'm not. But I am getting out there & trying & that's a step in the right direction.

So much for justice

This actually happened recently in my office.

Defendant applied for a public defender on a Monday. Defendant was in jail when he applied & was going to be in custody until his next hrg. Next hrg was scheduled on Friday at 1:00 p.m. 

Court reviewed the application for a public defender on Friday about 12:00 p.m. The clerk emailed our office at 12:15 p.m.to say that the defendant was appointed to our office & the hrg was in 45 minutes. No attorneys where in the office (bc it was lunch time) & even if they were, the county where this court is located is 45 minutes away, so the attorney would have zero time to talk to the defendant before the hrg. Our staff notified the court that there were no attorneys available on such short notice.

The defendant's hrg still took place, without a public defender present. Somehow the court got the defendant to agree to proceed w/o counsel (probably threw us under the bus & said we wouldn't send anyone, but failed to mention that we couldn't send anyone bc we weren't given advanced notice of the hrg). At a contested probation hrg.

Fabulous. Justice clearly served.