Legal Advice

Besides the usual aid in letting those who need it have a place to stay, there’s all the little “extra” and miscellaneous duties that come with being a program supervisor at a sober living home.

Among these being “legal advice”.  Not just for guests, but for those who well familiar with my previously checkered past, and long experience in dealing with aiding others who run afoul of the law, know to call me.

My first advice, ever and always, is “Always​ ​shut​ ​up.​ ​​ ​Always get​ ​a​ ​lawyer.​ ​​ ​Always​ ​then​ ​do​ ​what​ ​the​ ​lawyer​ ​says.”

And when it comes to purely “legal advice”, that is not only the first piece of advice I give, but the last.  

The rest of it is not really "legal advice", but mainly explaining the process that they can expect, and what is likely to happen, and what they should shoot for.  As opposed to what they think will happen or what they think they should do.

Random Example:

Katie called out to me tonight, I was in the other room playing on facebook.  “My net friend Jane’s son was arrested!”  (Not her real name)

Me:  Was it the meth?  (I was familiar with her wayward son’s trials and tribulations.  A 30 year old ne’er do well with some prior prison time already under his belt.)

Katie:  First it was failure to appear, then meth later. There’s a dozen or so more charges now, she doesn’t know why.

Me:  Prosecutorial overkill.  Throw on everything, see what sticks, “give in” on half of them, and still plea out the other half.  

Katie:  They had a chance to arrest him at a traffic stop, but let him go, then a few hours later they surrounded the house he was at and arrested him there.  She doesn’t know why.

Me:  Because if they had arrested him for "failure to appear" at the traffic stop, they’d have needed a search warrant to look in the house.  But busting him there means they get to do a “search incidental to the arrest” and they don’t need to bother a judge for a warrant for that.

Katie:  How does she get him out?

Me:  She shows up at arraignment tomorrow.  They’ll assign a bail amount, and she can post 10% of that.  She should know that nowadays they rarely give the whole amount back.  They’ll seize part of it for fees, penalties, court costs, jail costs and such.

Katie types some more, as she is typing each of these things I’m saying and messaging them to her net buddy.

Katie:  She says that he was arrested on Saturday.

Me:  Well, she already missed the arraignment then, they always do it within a day, two days if it’s the weekend.  He’d have likely been arraigned on Monday, and so now all she needs to do is call the jail and ask what the bail is.  They have to tell her, and then she can come up with the 10%.

Five minutes pass.

Katie:  $10,000.  No, wait, $100,000.  

Me:  Then they really want to keep him there, or they’d have set it at $5,000 to $10,000.  She’ll have to mortgage the house, or get a loan off of a car or other assets, or if her credit’s good enough, a signature loan.

Katie:  She can’t do any of those things.

Me:  Then it’s time to hire a lawyer, if he’s left with the Public Defender he has no hope at all.

The best public defender ever.  And he lost.  Yeah, really.

Katie:  How does she find a good one?

Me:  That’s a tough one.  Poor ones can work harder, and rich ones can ignore you, or the rich have connections and the poor ones are dumb.  You never really know unless you know someone who had a good lawyer get him a good deal before.  

As a general rule, you don’t want a very large firm with a full color glossy ad where her kid will be one out of five hundred cases.  But you don’t want some newbie just out of law school who the DA will run rings around.  Best to find some three person firm of forty somethings specializing in criminal law, and the amount they charge should be affordable, but hurt a bit all the same.

Katie:  What do you mean hurt?  

Me:  Well, unless she’s a lot richer than us, she wants to pay enough that it will hurt her budget quite a bit.  Bargain basement prices get you - generally - a bargain basement defense.  She should be thinking around $1,500 to $3,000, and $3,000 would be better.

Katie:  To get him off?

At that point I leave off my facebook playing and go in to speak to her immediately.

Me:  No, no, no!  Meth, failure to appear, burglary, some of these are felony charges, not to mention the miscellaneous mopery and dopery.  Taking those to trial would cost around $10,000 to $15,000 and she does NOT want to do that!  Never minding the massive expense, she needs to understand very clearly that her son would lose anyway.

Katie:  Why?

Me:  Because from what you’ve told me, he is, in fact, guilty, and our system, with all it’s flaws, is more than capable of establishing the guilt of a meth addict.  They convict a dozen innocent folks a day, imagine how much easier that is when they’re really guilty!  

He needs to place his fate in the hands of his mom who loves him and a private attorney qualified to represent him.  If he tries to Matlock this at a jury trial, he’ll never see the light of day again.

Katie:  Why a lawyer at all then?

Me:  His lawyer will have one job and one job only.  To get him the best plea deal possible.  If his name were Leroy Minority, he’d get the lousiest plea deal and do the most time.  If his name was Trent Cavendish Merryweather IV, he’d get the best plea deal and likely do no time at all.  

As it is, he’s in the vast middle area, and there’s a lot of room for maneuvering there.  His lawyer will then use all his skills to get him the best deal possible, where he’ll do less time than he deserves, but more than he wants.  Which is a given, because no one wants to do any time.  But if he gets under five, he should feel that it’s a success.  If he gets a year, then wow, he found one heckuva lawyer.  

In any case, he’ll only do 50% to 80% of the time, depending on the state and their rules of how much time off you can have for good behavior.

Katie:  His mom thinks he’ll want a trial.

Me:  Trials are for the stubbornly and stupidly innocent.  And lawyers hate representing the innocent, because they should avoid trials too, but rarely will.  They insist on their day in court, sure that if they only tell their side, they’ll be set free by an intelligent jury and fair minded judge.  Two things that you may bank on being absent in the system.  

The reality then is that they’ll go down any way and get more time than they would have.

With guilty clients it’s easier, as their lawyer can just tell them, “Hey, you did it, so knock it off.  I’m just here to get you the least time for the dumb stuff you know you did.”  And when they’re guilty, they’ll usually understand that eventually and go along with it.

Katie:  What if he insists?

Me:  It’s a movie myth that lawyers have to lie for their clients.  The lawyer is allowed to say, “I’m not going to lie for you or let you perjure yourself.  You take the best plea I can get you, or get another attorney.  And since I don’t give refunds, that will be the Public Defender.”

The threat of the Public Defender will scare him straight!

The point his mom and attorney must convey to him is that while he’s going to want to blame his friends, or the girl with him, or the police, or this, that or the other, that it won’t matter.  He is actually guilty, everyone knows it, and trying to get off scot free is only going to hurt him.  

You find the best lawyer you can, let him make the best deal he can, and do the time as best you can.  It’s not glamorous, it’s not like the movies, but it’s the safest and sanest way to go.

Katie:  His mom says he didn’t do the burglary, the guys who live there don’t want to admit it’s their meth.  

Me:  And they’re unlikely to change their story, so that’s that.  The penalty for hanging out with addicts is that they are sometimes - heh, heh - less than honest! This should be a lesson to him. Sadly, it probably won't be.

Katie:  What should he do while his mom gets him a lawyer?  His mom says he has a big mouth.

Me:  He needs to get some duct tape.  There is nothing he can say to aid his case, except to be a model inmate at the local jail and say “Yes, sir” in his daily life there.  He can put his mom’s name on the visiting list, attend the jail house AA meetings, and any little Christian prayer group that will inevitably exist there.  He doesn’t fight, he doesn’t shave his head or tatt up, and he doesn’t join any gang “for protection”.  It’s jail, not prison.

Past that, he tells his attorney everything, listens to everything his attorney says, does that exactly, and accepts whatever plea his attorney gets him.  A truly penitent allocution won’t get him a lesser sentence than the plea deal, but it may help in which facility the judge recommends to the DOC that he serve in.

Katie:  Nothing else?  

Me:  Nothing.  And especially he should say nothing to any cell mate or anyone else.  Not a one in there wouldn’t snitch to shave a month off their likely sentence or get a charge reduced or dismissed.

Now.

That basically concluded the conversation.  I would only add that the movies and TV shows are truly harmful.  Generally speaking, you are not going to “beat the rap” by getting the cop or the county on some fine point of Constitutional law.  Or a “technicality” whatever you imagine that to be.  Or an insanity defense.  Or a surprise last minute witness.  Or by “putting the system on trial!”  Or by having Henry Fonda hang a jury.  Or by Clarence Darrow giving a nine hour summation that brings the jury to tears and has the Judge apologizing to you.  Or by having Jack Nicholson scream about how poorly he feels you can handle the truth.

And in such rare cases as you might, well, the attorney you got, that’s his job to know, so if he’s not mentioning it, then yeah, it is unlikely to exist.

Also, the above should not be took to mean that you automatically cave.  It's just a random example.

If it’s truly a bad bust, something like “sassing a cop in the third degree” or “driving while black” or “wrong time, wrong place” then you might wish to fight.  That will be between you and your attorney, and will be based far more on what you can afford then any fine issue of moral/legal right and wrong.

And of course, none of the above advice changes the fact that you NEVER make it easy for the cops and DA by talking, answering questions or making a statement.  Even if you’re innocent.

Especially if you’re innocent.

Always shut up.  Always get a lawyer.  Always then do what the lawyer says.

(I told you that was not only my first, but last advice!)

Nerves

"Nerves"

It was a nerve wracking day yesterday.  

It started out with harassing texts sent to me and me having to visit the library to print a letter.  And then going to the Police Station.  But I'll get back to that.

Looking about facebook and kicking out some trolls in some of the faith based groups I admin, I got a message from a name I did not recognize.

"Please give me another chance"

Well, that caught my attention.  And wasn't too much a surprise, I've had people kicked out of the Church and Apostle facebook groups before only to have them later ask to come back, and I let them.  Why not?  Sometimes people get steamed, and then they feel better.  Forgiveness and all that.

So long as they're going to comment and post in peace, and nothing against the Church, I'm up for it.

Yet the name was unfamiliar. And I don't kick that many people out of facebook groups that I would not have recognized the name.  I assumed then that this was an fake profile being used to contact me.  

Which would only be needful if I had personally blocked them, not just booted them from a group.

So I warily asked, "At what?"

Stranger:  "Being the person I wanna be I'm cold I have no where

Nothing"

Now I'm sitting at attention.  Clearly this is not about facebook groups, but perhaps some former guest of the Liahona Home using an alt-nic to speak to me.  Which means they have no phone minutes.  

"Who's this?" I asked.

Former guest:  "This is (name withheld)

                         I'll do whatever"

Ahh.  Light dawns.  I was aware of that former guest, he had been one of the few who never paid any money.  The Church had sponsored him, but regrettably we had to have him leave before the whole two months was up.  

He had lasted, well, not very long, and was put out for stealing, drug use, and all around orneriness.  And he'd had quite a bit to say on his way out, things that were ugly and threatening.  

We always get the most grief from those who never pay.  They're the ones who always act like not supporting them any more is somehow an attack upon them, and a robbery of what they rightfully deserve.

Now I know that we've took some back, but in each case they'd left moderately peaceably.  I don't mind someone being upset at having to leave.  But violence or implied violence ties my hands.

I wrote:

"I'm sorry, but you did not conduct yourself, or leave, in a fashion that makes that possible.

I strongly suggest the ARC where you can learn to do without pot and that a hard days work over and over won't kill you.

If you graduate from that after ninety days, I'll give you such help as I can on job finding or college or MTI or the military."

Understand, had he done that, I'd have been inclined to try him here at the sober living home again.  If he had done the full ninety, and I could confirm that with people I know there.

I had offered him that when he left originally, but he had rejected that, and apparently did not remember me offering that.

He responded now with:

"What do u mean 90 days

No dean please

Please"

Well, that's kind of heart rending.  I know when later I read this exchange to Katie that at that point she had that look Jo Baer of "Little Men" had that says, "Are you sure we can't give him another try?"  And he is very young, only 20.  

But I knew that in his case that without him first doing something concrete and real toward his recovery/self-improvement that there'd be no hope of it working out, and so accepting him now would only hurt all concerned.

And yeah, I also figured that he was just shamming and that he must have simply ran out of friends willing to have him on their couch.

So I wrote:

"The Salvation Army's Adult Rehabilitation Center offers a free 90 day program.  You live on site.  No drugs or alcohol.  They give you work and food and a bed.

After 90 days, you've then some habits of sobriety and work.  And hopefully not stealing any more."

His response was rather swift.  And illuminating.

"Fxxx u dean u know what ur not a true morman ur the devils xxx hole and you'll burn in he'll for being such an angel I are"

At that point it broke off.  

I responded, "Okay, (name withheld).  I'll keep you in my prayers."

This is on top of that other ex-guest and his son still giving me grief over not being able to live here for free indefinitely.  Apparently the father of the man I won't let stay is texting another guest asking the guest to go over to Katie and ask Katie to friend him on facebook so he can tell her some things.

I suspect that I was meant to be told that he had asked that, so I could feel as threatened and concerned for her safety as I then was.  And that he, active addict and word-spinner, probably is under the impression that if he strings enough words together it means he gets his way.

I've yet to hear from either of their lawyers, though from last Thursday on both of them have assured me that they have two.  If any lawyer calls, I'm going to offer to settle out of court for triple what those two together had invested.  Let's see, three times zero is....hmmm....carry the None...well, it will come to me in time.

Then their lawyers can fight over what percent they get of that.

And both father and son are each still texting and calling me.  They know I will not answer, as I previously advised them that since they had claimed to have representation that I could only speak to their lawyers.  But they're doing that stalking thing where they're making sure that no matter how your day is going or what you're trying to do, that you'll have to be thinking of them.  

Brushing your teeth?  Helping a guest?  Reading a faith-based article that has meaning to you?  Liking a post of a friend?  Cuddling with your honey?  Eating dinner?  They'll make sure by random texting and phoning that you still must always think about them.

I'd block their phone numbers, but the collection of their harassing texts and calls will eventually, if it comes to it, be proof of why I will later need the police to trespass them officially.

Next up, this afternoon while driving a guest about so he could put in some job applications I got a call from "Corporate Counsel".  Yeah, regrettably the City of Springfield's lawyers are on my speed dial for other past business issues so when the call came in I knew it was them.

He told me that he had got the letters I had sent.  Pertaining to our request that we be treated no differently than the Salvation Army or other non-profits.  This morning I had hand delivered copies of a letter I wrote to the Chief of Police, the Police Officer in charge of the "Beat" that we're in and our Alderman.  

It was pertaining to the incident last Thursday where that son of the former guest was trying to claim residency and the police were initially inclined to give it to him.  Believing as they did that we were under normal landlord/tenant laws, which we are not.

I'm not feeling that he was really asking for "clarification" as he stated, but more looking for "reason to dismiss this without further attention".  Still, hope springs eternal.

"If I understand it, you're asking the police to put people out of your home?", he asked.  Well, there went hope.

Me discussing things with Springfield lawyers.
And reciting Psalms 23:4 to myself.

Understand, the police do routinely "put people out" if the Salvation Army or Sojourn or Helping Hands say they have a trespasser.  But instead of pointing that out I said, "No, we don't need any help putting someone out, we're just not interested in the police putting them back in.  This doesn't happen to other non-profits, we don't want it happening to us."

He filled what would have been the silence of him mulling that over with the repeated assurances that they had no desire to discriminate between any corporations and then asked, "What makes you think that the police treat the Salvation Army differently?"

Understand, that is just another question to try to make the person think that they have no legitimate case and to go away and stop bothering them.  It is manifestly unfair in that they are asking that we try and explain what is blatantly common knowledge.

And give up in frustration at having to try.  After all, he was asking for a negative, for me to name the time that the police did not tell someone that they could live on another corporation's property.  

I had no non-case number for that non-event.

So I waded in and said, "I might reverse that and ask you when the police ever tried even once to put someone into the Salvation Army against that charity's will.  Truth is, it's common knowledge that those places can have anyone leave that they need to have leave and that there is no talk of residency and rights of the trespasser then."

He answered that he was only trying to determine if there were in fact different procedures being employed by the police for different corporations.  He asked then if I knew the officer's names.

I wasn't going there.  "No, sure don't.  And like I said in the letter, I've no complaint.  It's just that we're suffering from a name recognition issue.  Any cop called to Sally Army knows who they are, but the cops don't know who we are.  If we had a big building and neon sign, this would never have come up."

There were more lawyerly talkings and assurances of seeing about this and giving proper considerations, and I thanked him and hung up.  Who knows?

But as Katie said when I related this, "They either have to treat us the same or tell us what extra papers those other places have.  And if they tell us what papers those places have that we don't, then we'll just go fill them out!"

Very true!  So I can soothe down my nerves for now.

At least till the next random text!

Perceptions

The philosopher George Berkely once wrote “esse est percipi”, or “to be is to be perceived”.  True enough.  Yet sadly, and more often in the cultural, social and legal world, it’s really “percipi est esse”, or “to be perceived as a thing, is to be that thing”.

Take sober living homes and shelters in general.  There are many in Springfield.  There is the Salvation Army’s Adult Rehabilitation Center.  There is Helping Hands.  There are many Oxford Houses.  

All cater to those who suffer from alcoholism, addiction, or even just plain old homelessness.  All offer a place to stay.  All are run by what are known as “not for profit corporations” or sometimes “non-profit corporations”.  Even if they are church run, they are still incorporated or registered under the laws of the State of Illinois as non-profit corporations.

This makes things easy for them.  When someone there is wanting to use drugs or drink booze or start fights or destroy property, they need only tell that person to leave.  And if that person does not, then they can call the police and have them made to leave.  

No “eviction proceedings”.  No courts.  No “wait thirty days on the court while the homeless guy steals you blind and destroys the place”.  

After all, most such local charities do pay some kind of taxes, if only property taxes, and those police are there to work for them.  

And besides, paying taxes or not, the job of the police is to uphold the law, and the law concerning homeless shelters and sober living homes is clear.

And to top it all of?  These places are charities, doing good for others at cost, or below cost.  Why make them suffer for trying to help others?  Hence the laws being wrote to exempt them from eviction proceedings in the first place.

If only it were that easy for us.

You see, our own Liahona Mission has something in common with all those other places.  That is to say, we have EVERYTHING in common with them, being incorporated as legally as they, registered and listed as clearly as they, and doing charitable outreach same as they.

Well, with one small difference.  Perception.  We aren’t “known”.  At least not as well.

Oxford Houses are known, even by regular street level cops.  Salvation Army and Helping Hand are giant facilities with signs and parking lots and staff.  Everybody knows them.

What difference does that make?

Quite a bit.  You see, one of the frustrating things that those who don’t have lawyers on retainer have to deal with is “cop justice”.  Cop justice is where there is a dispute between two or more citizens and the first cop to arrive gets to decide it any way he likes, based upon the best of his knowledge, or in the absence of knowledge, whatever seems right in the immediacy of the moment.  

Often times, it boils down to whichever person tells the better story, or speaks first.  If a cop hears a story first, and it is understandable to him, then no other side, no matter how well expressed, is going to change his mind.  And then for that moment, that day, and even weeks, until you can hire an attorney and in consultation with a DA or Police Chief or City leader get it cleared up, you’re stuck with that cop’s decision, even if it is blatantly and crushingly wrong.

Such was what I almost had to deal with yesterday.  And why perception is the essence, that what we are - or are not - perceived as, is what then a random cop can believe we are.  Or aren’t.  In this case, he “perceived” us as landlords who could be compelled to accept an alleged former tenant.

Background.  We had a sober living house guest who stayed two months for free in exchange for putting in a shower base incorrectly, breaking a shower drain and then fixing it again, but without the trap that would stop sewer gas from coming up, and correcting leaks that still leak.  He did however get one toilet working, and that has at least been handy.

His son, a heroin addict, came to visit and - well, where or if he stayed I’ll be coy about for legal reasons, but suffice to say, I spent almost three months trying to aid this 25 year old “man”.  Some of the things I helped him with were getting a job that he promptly lost.  An opioid addiction will do that to you.  I helped sign him up for an Army that will decline him as soon as he takes the physical.  I gave him free rides.  We had him over for Thanksgiving.  And Christmas.  As to whether I also provided for the entirety of his livelihood for almost three months for free - as HE claims! -  I’ll decline to confirm or deny that.

You can see this coming, I’m sure.  One day, about three months after whatever relationship I had with him was started, he was using opioids again.  Or still.  I waited until he was away and then gathered his stuff, that for whatever reasons I happened to have around.  Maybe I was storing it for him.  When he got back, I offered him a ride anywhere, as I always do.

Even to Decatur or Pana, as he was thinking about that.  But his father convinced him by phone, while I was driving him and his stuff, that the kid had a legal right to be in our sober living home.  The son thus declined my offer to drive him to family out of town, so I had to drop him off at Helping Hand instead.  Where he told me that his dad knew a lawyer through AA meetings and that he’d be coming to live at our sober living home within the hour.  Whether “again” or not, I’m not saying.  But I explained to him that it was not going to happen.

Back at our sober living home, I reviewed the physical and legal threats that were coming in by text from he and his father, neither of which have paid any money at all to be here.  The son in particular had not only paid no money, but had not even had any agreement to stay.  He was also the one I had gave my old iPhone6 to, which I’ve heard from others was more of a gift than I thought it was.

Amazingly, some older woman claiming to be a lawyer, some old flame of his dad’s, drove him to our sober living home.  And had the police meet them there.  I was at an utter loss.  I mean, we’ve had the police out before to remove guests, so I know that they know we’re a sober living home....but then, oops, these cops didn’t know anything about that!

And one cop was confused and thought that others had been out here before on this but I knew that was not the case.  Yet every time I tried to explain, he’d yell me down - loud enough that Katie heard from inside - and I’d remain silent till he let me speak again.  Then when I started to explain again, he’d yell again.

“I don’t know why you keep saying ‘sober living home’, if he stayed there he has a right to be there and he can break down the door and go in for all I care!  I’ve wasted enough time on this!”

He’d been there for a minute at that point.  The addict now looked very happy.

Asking for our 14th amendment rights to "equal protection".

I know cops, though.  And I am a reformed alcoholic who well knows that yelling back is never going to end well.  I over and over got in bit after bit of what I was trying to say as softly as I could.  The kid’s “lawyer” aided me because when the cop told her to step back, she got mouthy and said it was a public sidewalk and she could stay.  This gladdened my heart, as cops hate those who in any way challenge them, even if the challengers are right.  

Especially if they’re right.

Now, instead of me being the perceived challenger, she was.  See how that perception thing pops up again?  I continued to speak with the soft and conciliatory voice usually reserved for dealing with strange dogs.

I also took that opportunity to respectfully offer the cop the application that actual guests fill out and pointed out the part where it shows that we are covered under Federal law.  No landlord/tenant relationship.  No rent.  No evictions.  

I explained that it was not my house, but a sober living home run by a non-profit.  

I’d like to say my calm reasoning won the day, and perhaps it helped a little.  I think they were at least starting to wonder and looking for a reason to gracefully back off of their previous insistence that he go in.  Which probably did have something to do with me speaking gently and the “lawyer” being uppity.  

I knew I’d won when the cops then qualified to the kid what they had “meant”.  That is, they told the kid that he could go in, even breaking the down door, but only IF he had proof he lived there.  His “lawyer” was not very happy.

For of course, there was nothing there inside of his.  Nor did he have a key.  Or a lease.  Or even an agreement like the other guys.  Then the other cop saw that the attorney had all of the kid’s belongings in her car.  Which ended it.  If his stuff was there, it could not be in the house.  Ergo, he didn’t live there.  

But wait, a last clutching at a straw from the other cop!  If the addict had a piece of mail addressed to the sober living home address, he could stay!  My heart sank, as I often let people I aid use the address for jobs and mail and ID.  Whether they stay there or not.  A practice that thanks to the Springfield PD and their spotty ability to know the laws they enforce, I’ll have to re-evaluate.  

I’ll not confirm or deny whether that kid may have ever had any mail sent there, but I’ll say that I was concerned.  Fortunately, he could produce no such piece of mail, and the cops told him that “Sorry, if you had one, that’d be different, but…”

Later, after they had all left, I was trembling from delayed reaction.  And sick to my stomach.  I didn’t list out all the details, just enough so that you reading this could see that for a bit, there was an actual chance they were going to let the addict move in.  A heroin addict who hated me.  Who would have had that place stripped down and sold, pawned and fenced in 24 hours.  If not 12.  My appliances and fixtures would have been craiglisted out from under me.

Insurance?  Sure!  Having got the second house fixed up enough to accommodate another guest meant that for the first time ever we were able to afford insurance.  Yeah, we put the “non” in “non profit” and this month, to our joy, was the first month we could afford it.  You can guess how excited and relieved we were to get that last week!  But ask me how they’d respond if I had to file a claim within the first thirty days!

Pacing back and forth in my living room, five minutes after everyone had left, I looked out the window to see a police car pull up again.  I nervously went out.  He approached me, and where before he had pointedly not shook my hand, this time he did.  And said, “Hey, I’m sorry, you’re right, we had not been out on this before, it was something else!”

I was very relieved.  And grateful.  Very nice of him, really.  I was impressed.  He advised that I get some kind of paperwork, he knew not what kind, that could be something I could show any future cop.  I’m a bit nervous again, as there is no extra paperwork that we have not already got.  

I discussed this with Katie, and all we can think of is to get copies of the titles that show the houses are owned in the corporation’s name, and a certificate of good standing from the state - which both of those will cost - and maybe have the guys fill out even more strenuous paperwork saying over and over the same thing.

Yet we cannot help but notice that in this case, the addict that we almost had to watch break in with police approval had no lease, no agreement, no application, no nothing, and had never ever paid a dime to us.  I wonder, if I mailed a piece of mail to the Mayor’s house, would the police let me break down his door and move in?  Less dramatically, could I get mail at Helping Hand or Salvation Army and thus be allowed to stay there against their rules until those charities paid to evict me?

Of course not.  The police know who the Mayor is, and they know who Helping Hand and the Salvation Army are.  

Perception is how you then are.  Or are not.  We have figured that we need a sign.  A nice sign, big enough for any cop who comes by to read, “The Liahona Mission” and maybe underneath, “Faith Based Sober Living Homes”.  And maybe underneath that, “Established 2008”.  Just for the perception.  Maybe spot lit.  Heck, maybe a pic of a liahona!  

And no, I’m not kidding.  Katie and I looked at prices of this late last night, it’s not like we got to sleep very soon.

And again and always, we need to be members of the Chamber.  I have to believe that such a sticker of membership will convince the newest cop that letting an addict kick down the door of a local charitable business is not appropriate!  

What else can we do?  I mean, the parole and probation officers all know we’re a sober living home, they have agreements, signed by us, that they can enter and search any time they like!  I am truly at a loss as to how perception can play so large a part in this, that even in the face of every filled out form and application, and after every fee is paid, that a lone addict can threaten us, and the law can favor his false claim over a local charity’s legal status.

I was up all night watching over things.  After having bought a locking gas cap for Katie’s car.  But there could have been no danger at night as frightening as two policemen in broad daylight telling an addict that he has a right to live in our sober living house against our will.