

This one is coming out right, Wednesday’s Star Tribune reports the two officers who Tased the 76-year-old parade participant over where the parade should end, were given their walking papers and told to take a hike. We reported earlier on this mess out of Glenrock, Wyoming and suggested deeper budget cuts that included the police chief and the county prosecutor.
The Bush Legacy Paraded in Wyoming: An Intolerant Police State, a new low for America. September 7, 2009.
Now if they kick the prosecutor and police chief out of office we can all have a parade.
Town officials announced the firing this morning in a press release.
"After considering all aspects of the unfortunate event which occurred after the parade during Deer Creek Days this year, the decision has appropriately been made that the two Glenrock police officers involved are relieved of duty," the statement read.
The officers, Sgt. Paul Brown and officer Mike Kavenius, can appeal the decision.
Star Tribune, Wyoming
Theft involves the taking of property of another. The last I knew, this is still America and in order to be convicted of a crime requires, among other things, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its easy to take aim at persons accused of crime and criminal defense attorneys, but walk with me one day, meet my clients and you will feel differently about the fight to preserve our way of life. Its cases like Ryan Wacome's that erode our rights little by little.
According to the Des Moines Register, Ryan Wacome has been charged with a series of thefts at Des Moines City Hall. Wacome was a 20 year-old janitor. The Register says that small amounts of money were missing from desks over the past month so they contacted the Des Moines Police Department and set up a sting operation. A detective put a "small amount of money" in a desk and placed a camera to record whatever occurred. The camera allegedly caught Wacome removing the money. I hope he has not been charged with the other alleged thefts as has been reported. It would be one thing for him to agree to make restitution for the other amounts of money, but it would likely be a violation of his rights to get convicted of the other alleged thefts. Even if he confesses, Iowa criminal law requires more than that for an otherwise uncorroborated crime. I would also be curious to hear what evidence there is that the other thefts actually did occur. I keep some pennies and nickels in my desk but I can't tell you how many. Let me look, hmmmm, I thought I had a few more. Better call the Des Moines PD and set up a sting.
But here is the other thing: video and photographic evidence are sometimes the most unreliable evidence. Look at this photograph of an alleged burglary yesterday in Des Moines. Jurors are common people just like you or I, and if its difficult to tell who is in the photo, then that is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Thankfully most jurors are cognizant of that fact. I once had a convenience store robbery case where it was caught on surveillance video. The clerk alleged a weapon was displayed and she was stuck in the cooler. There was a cop in the parking lot and my client was nabbed walking out the door into the parking lot. It was 5 a.m. Very few other persons were around. The person in the video did resemble my client and he was facing a 62-year prison sentence. For good reason, my client is a free man today. A photo is not always worth a thousand words.
Under Iowa criminal law, it could be a felony for someone to be in possession of marijuana or other controlled substances if they have not gone down to the Department of Revenue and obtained a drug tax stamp. For example, if you are in possession of roughly an ounce and a half of marijuana without the tax stamp, you are considered a "drug dealer" and need to obtain a drug tax stamp. This amount of marijuana is readily considered a personal usage amount and can have a low value, say $50. Not my idea of a drug dealer.
There is a phone number for you to call and an address for you to appear in Des Moines if you want to schedule an appointment to obtain the stamp. With most government offices, you can usually just show up and someone will great you with a cheerful face and help you through whatever process you need to complete. I'm not sure that you would be greeted with a cheerful face at the Iowa Department of Revenue when you show up at your appointment. The last I knew, no one had ever filled out the paperwork (didn't our legislators say we need to eliminate unnecessary laws??). I'm guessing we haven't spent much money making these stamps. It seems like it would be a good money-maker for the State of Iowa: $5 per gram of marijuana and $750 per unprocessed marijuana plant. The State also will collect $250 per gram of any other substance. Did Iowa legalize marijuana? Did Iowa legalize other drugs?
Of all the absurd criminal laws we have, this one is just plain terrible. In my opinion it is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. The worst part is that it presumes someone in Iowa is a drug dealer without any other evidence. Usually this charge is added to many other charges for trial and the prosecutor offers to drop this felony if you plead to another charge. Most people do that unfortunately, and I'm certain that is the reason for the law- to eliminate the need for justice since justice can be so messy. If the charge is not dropped, the State can come after you to collect the money that they feel they are owed since you didn't show up in advance to fill out their forms to obtain the tax stamp.
If anyone decides to take their marijuana down to the Department of Revenue in Des Moines to get a drug tax stamp, give me a call, I'd like to come watch. One thing on my life's list of things to do is to see something that has never been done before. And then I might have lunch with my legislator.
There have been many news stories this week about "robbery." Robbery is a term that is used rather loosely in the general public, but has a specific term in an Iowa courtroom. For example, if someone has a lawnmower stolen from their yard, upon discovery they yell "I was robbed!" This is not a robbery. When the Iowa Chops said they were leaving town, we all said "we were robbed!" Of course, that is not a robbery.
According to news reports, there were some Git-N-Go stores that were all "robbed" a couple nights ago. In a couple of the incidents, the clerks said guns were displayed and money was stolen. If proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury, this is the classic definition of robbery. In at least one incident though the alleged suspects were nothing more than mere opportunists and grabbed cash out of the register while the clerk was away without any threats or weapons. This is not robbery, and is nothing more than a misdemeanor theft. When caught, however, their charges will need to be negotiated.
In another incident, Pegkella Dameron is charged with robbing a Kum-N-Go because she allegedly threw a punch after being confronted for stealing some candy and tea. If convicted, she'll go to prison for a long time. The legislature has considered changing this law so that people like Pegkella that commit an assault during a simple shoplifting event would not be going to prison, but thus far they have not changed the law. At present, this may meet the current Iowa definition of robbery.
Darnell Ramey is charged with robbing a Wells Fargo concession stand during a Coldplay concert. Apparently there were others involved, according to the Des Moines Register. The Register does not make it clear what involvement or charges the others are facing. This case will involve an analysis of accomplice responsibility and a determination will need to be made of each person's role in this incident.
Often times, robbery charges in Iowa should be nothing more than misdemeanor thefts. Robbery is a forcible felony requiring either a 25 year or 10 year prison sentence depending upon the level, so be careful the next time you say someone robbed you. There are some specific defenses to these charges.
Let me start with a question: How can any adult be experienced enough to legally kill a person but too immature to know who they should have a sexual relationship?
After writing mega Sex No-No Number One I got more interested in knowing what other states have done when an 18-year-old student, an adult, has sex with another adult that is his/her teacher. I read something on another blog that gave me a laugh for the day because I couldn’t believe the justification I read from the writer who stands behind this societal puritanical hypocrisy. Look what the writer states on Parentdish when the State of Washington ruled the law was not clear whether adults, when one was a teacher, could not have a sexual relationship.
“If I was a parent living in Washington, I'd want this law changed now. Yes, 18-year-olds are technically adults, but they are very, very new adults, and that teacher/student relationship puts them in a vulnerable position. I mean, if it's true love, can't you wait a few months until after graduation? (But not with my kid, buster!)”
Teacher-Student Sex - Legal at Age 18?, by Bethany Sanders Jan 15th 2009 4:00PM
Let me put this in perspective for these hypocrites. What these folks propose is a new idea in legal-illegal behavior norms in society; one that is completed unworkable and full of hypocrisy.
TEACHER STUDENT SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
First we have children, then teenagers, followed by new adults and lastly at some unknown age finally, FULL-FLEDGED ADULTHOOD. So during the new very, very new adulthood period you can quit school, go out into the workforce, move out of your parents homes, enlist in the armed forces, get drafted if the very, very old adults decide they want conscription and have you sent home in a body-bag. But, and this is a big butt, you can not have sex with another adult, even a very, very new adult if that person is your teacher. It is illegal to have sex with another adult because these very very new adults don’t know what’s best for themselves between the sheets but when it comes to signing yourself up for the armed services where you very well may get killed you’re level of maturity is sufficient.
Old Army basic training chant: Bang, bang, this is your gun, this one’s for pleasure and this one’s for fun.
The reasoning goes like this, if we need your body to protect whatever it is we prize, oil maybe, you can sign up to be killed but don’t think about having sex with another adult because you’re not mature enough. Once enlisted, the miracle occurs and you can now have sex with your C.O. but never your high school gym teacher. One day you’re too new to this adult game but even on the same day you aren’t too new to this game. Sign up for enlistment in the morning you’re mature; have sex with the English teacher in the afternoon and you’re too new of an adult to know what is right for you.
Bang-bang your dead! Bang-bang she’s pregnant! Bang-bang you sex partner is a criminal.
What a bunch of hypocrites. The Courts are pandering to the legislatures untrained and immature legal reasoning by allowing them to pass any laws no matter how absurd the result and ideas behind them. In the long run the reasoning used in this sexual predator law will lead to more and more absurd results as this concept of gradating adulthood takes hold in other laws. It should stop and the Courts should find this law unworkable, leading to an absurd conclusion and full of unsound reasoning. Just because some mother and father don’t want their kid sleeping with the blonde headed English teacher doesn’t good law. Adults are adults and if they can sign up to shoot a rifle and die for their country then they should be allowed to sleep with whomever they choose; including the teacher. Simply stated, if these 18-year-olds aren’t mature enough to decide about having sex with adult teachers then are they mature enough to work under supervisors who may be older, or commanding officers who will be older or for that matter college professors.
The more we treat young people like idiots without a brain the more we have to dumb-down the cash registers at McDonalds. The truth is children, teenagers and young adults have to make mistakes to build good strong character. Without good character you become a weak link in society. With enough weak links we get a barrel full of rotten apples. Mommies and daddies can’t follow junior onto the battle field of life. If you want junior to be able to right for your oil then start treating him like the man he is.
These are what I call Molly Laws. Molly is our dog. She’s very good about barking when anyone walks by, but whenever we have a thunderstorm she runs and sticks her head under the bed; as if just hiding her eyes from what she thinks is bad will somehow protect her. It's the laws of physics and reason according to Molly.

You want strong armies; then you need strong young men and women. This reasoning that allows enlistment but not sexual engagement is self-serving. It’s the same reasoning that is used to hand out participation trophies. Enough already let the school districts deal with these relationships between teachers and students. Society has more important things to worry about.
Let us not forget WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan and Iraq II.
Lombardi Law Firm
1300 37th Street, Suite 6
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Phone: 515-222-1110
Toll Free: 800-383-0331
Get Directions
What information will a lawyer need at an initial interview for a criminal defense?