Phelps Law Office

05/27/2026

THE KYBO SOLUTION

As I have often confessed, I am a criminal defense attorney. I am familiar with many if not most of who are termed the "homeless" citizens of Newton. One of the reasons that I always found jury trials interesting, and not just for the defendant, but for the community, was for the jurors to learn just how many people in their community are "homeless". They have no idea until they see it for themselves and are required to listen to the witnesses, many of whom are indeed homeless currently, have been homeless in the past, or soon will be.

But to partially alleviate the lack of housing, a new housing option has arisen: storage units. I have recently determined that at least three of my clients are residing in storage units. Normally these have electricity so a denizen of such a facility can charge his phone or have a light of some kind. Both very helpful.

One must confess that a storage unit is probably preferable to a tent, especially with electricity available. This leads me to the subject of this article however - - kybos. The city should either rent or purchase kybos for placement in various locations throughout Newton. A leading complaint about the "homeless" is they bother both homeowners and business owners looking for a place to go to the bathroom. Currently a person seen going to the bathroom in public will be arrested. And if you are arrested, the probability is that you will lose all the stuff you have been able to accumulate during your homelessness. This benefits no one.

Hey, you might even have a jogger or two as an appreciative user and there are folks out there working on our streets, building houses, pouring concrete, shingling roofs that could use a place to p*e occasionally as well. It's just not the "homeless" you would be helping out here. You know, guys setting a pole for the light company have needs as well.

I can't imagine a kybo wearing out very fast. It's relatively cheap and would be something that would be an actual benefit to the many citizens of Newton who find themselves in need of immediate relief from whatever cause. This should be put on the agenda for the next city council meeting and acted upon directly. It is a no-lose issue. It would be of immense benefit to my clients who have to bother an acquaintance to find a place to defecate when, after all, it may be of some urgency. It would alleviate much personal suffering.

To repeat, Newton has a large number of "homeless" people - many of whom are available to discuss these issues, if you are so inclined - on the third floor of the courthouse on a Wednesday morning. Most with a little prompting will be willing to engage in conversation. If they can make it to court on a Wednesday morning, most do, they are at least getting by with only occasional stints in the county jail.

Richard E H Phelps II

05/23/2026

WHAT WE CALL CRIME

What we call crime changes regularly or I should say added to. Our current emphases have been with us for a while: money, s*x, drugs. Many forms of obtaining money, engaging in s*xual activities, or the ingestion of substances that make you feel different from how you normally feel are deemed criminal.

I know these things because I represent the people who are determined to be criminals: those engaging in activities that the people in charge deem to be "not acceptable". A civilized society has always determined that there are some activities that are simply not to be allowed. I like to refer to Old England, the medieval England, where there were few crimes, but those were pretty self-explanatory and clearly proper.

Where personal property was hard to find and impossible to replace, stealing it was a serious matter. Then there were the standard crimes of r**e, assault and battery, murder and a few others thought necessary to live in peace and harmony with one another. One really couldn't find complaint in these crimes - any decent society would have the same.

But here, in the States we have thousands of crimes and we are deemed to know them. Not knowing them is not a defense. Tough luck if you do something that is considered criminal. And since there are thousands of crimes and police everywhere, criminal defense is a profession with opportunity. I am very fortunate in my choice of professions - that of criminal defense attorney. Always busy.

The people we elect to represent us, our legislators - this seems to apply to all legislatures - make new crimes every year, but then they wonder why crime is increasing (in their mind it is always increasing) and it is for a very simple reason. If there are more crimes, there are more criminals. One would think that enough is enough already, but no - there is never enough crime. When one looks for justification in all these new crimes, one has to wonder what is the purpose. The drug crimes deserve special attention though. Why is the ingestion of a particular substance illegal and worth many years in prison including substances that are required to be prescribed?

The reason is that "drugs" ruin lives; and consequently, if you are determined to ruin your life, our legislatures have decided it will be ruined by prison, not illegal substances. You'll have to admit nothing ruins a life quicker than incarceration. This is uncontrovertible - - jail is detrimental. At least if you were getting high, you were enjoying yourself - having a decent experience hopefully. There is not much that is enjoyable in jail.

Having considerable association with people who use methamphetamine or other substances determined to be either illegal or illegally obtained, I believe I have a relatively objective view of this situation. I have known and currently know hundreds of people who are presumably committing daily criminal acts by ingesting things the possession of which is deemed criminal. They all seem pretty normal to me and not particularly ruined.


Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

05/06/2026

HOMELESSNESS

I'm sorry, but I object to these fruitless discussions about homelessness. If some person or persons live in a camper beside the road or in a tent in a park, they are not homeless. Their homes are in a camper beside the road or in a tent in the park. Simply because they don't have two bedrooms and two bathrooms and a kitchen does not qualify them as homeless.

Once again, some city council person complained about some guy with a grocery basket full of his worldly goods hanging out in various places, normally close to a fast food dumpster. After all, a guy has to eat and there usually is plenty of food found in various dumpsters. You just have to know where to look. This guy is perfectly content which, usually, is the real cause of the city council person's complaint.

These people are not homeless; they simply have habitation habits not consistent with yours. If they wanted to work at some menial job for minimum wage so they can afford some dump called an apartment, they can do so. Hardie's, Burger King, McDonald's, KFC are all hiring all the time. Go ask and you will receive. Pretty simple really.

What we really object to is that these people object. They object to our expectations. We have come to expect that since we spend our lives in activities that in no way benefit us except in cash so that we can eke out an existence from a job that may be gone next week, they should have to do the same. After all, we just signed a humongous loan to buy a $350,000 house that will be gone in the first windstorm and will cost me any money I might accumulate in insurance costs to reimburse me from that first windstorm.

I saw a photo of the campers lining the ocean side streets of Malibu with a huge smile. These people have it made - - beautiful climate, leisure, ocean on one side and a road to town on the other. What more could one ask for? What is even more delectable: the multi-million dollar mansions across the street, most of which are only inhabited by the people who take care of them, have owners worth millions if not billions who hate those people littering the neighborhoods in which they have invested, causing a depreciation in the value of their very expensive houses.

It's not that these people are missing out on anything important. What do most of us do anyway at home besides finding something to eat, go to the bathroom, either watch TV or surf the net after dinner, and then take some medication to help us sleep another night. Oh, I forgot, mow the yard and wash the car that you owe $40,000 on. What's so great about that when I can do exactly the same thing (no mowing or washing) by the ocean without huge loans to pay on every month. If you need a little extra cash for a vacation, just drop in to the local Pizza Hut for a few weeks and wait some tables. It's all good.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

05/06/2026

WHAT'S NEXT?

If one were to pay attention to current developments, one would realize that there are, at a minimum, two things that will change our lives immensely and these two things are not material: they exist only electronically. These two things are AI and quantum computers. But, they will affect every aspect of our lives.

Let's talk quantum computers first. These will be with us shortly, within a decade. From what one reads, these computers will be millions of times faster than traditional computers: the computers that we have had now for approximately 80 years. If one were to stop and look, one can see for oneself that the computer as we know it has changed the world we live and work in. It is not the same world as it was before the advent of computers. Now we will have a method of computing that is unimaginable and our lives will change dramatically because of it.

The human species, us, have with difficulty, been able to adjust to all innovations. Innovations have always, and presumably always will, benefit some and destroy others. The industrial revolution is our model for the effects that technology has had. There is no reason to believe that the future will be different.

The second development, which is occurring now, is AI. AI will be all-encompassing. Being a criminal defense attorney, I see it already in the mischievous use of AI to defame, terrify and simply annoy others. What AI will do to a population that spends its time online can not be adequately digested.

An acquaintance said to me: "I went on ChatGPT to find some interesting things to do in Des Moines: that I could do with my eight year old. My friend didn't call up an acquaintance, someone in the neighborhood, a cousin or other human being to help find something to do for the evening. He used AI; he used an electronic knowledge bank. I was not privy to the results of this effort.

But to think of AI, is not to analyse the result of a query, but to think of the effect it will have on us as people or as friends, acquaintances, fellow workers, etc. I no longer need to call Fred to discuss some matter or for suggestions and ideas, I use AI. Who needs Fred when I have ChatGPT?

So what do you say! So you don't need Fred anymore, so what? Is there any reason even to know Fred? And how are decisions to be made and how will these decisions affect others? Where is the best place to rob a store? What is the best way to liquidate a rival? How was the decision to attack Iran made; was it a person or was it ChatGPT?

Let's say a major decision has been made using ChatGPT and that decision has had consequences not envisioned nor beneficial, but devastating. Who do we blame? Who do we hold accountable? What this really comes down to is that we need to start thinking about these things collectively. Our legislatures, rather than worrying about someone being transgender or a book in the library depicting a gay teenager, might start considering how we are going to deal with the tremendous societal changes that are coming through quantum computing and AI and others we may not even be aware of.

Our lives are going to change and we need to think about what will be happening to us and the people we care about. This should be a collective effort.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

04/20/2026

ARE WE SURE?

Are we sure this is what we want? The American myth, the American belief, our reason for being is and has always been, a land where people from elsewhere can have a new beginning, can achieve what they could not achieve from where they came. The Statute of Liberty symbolizes that belief.

The question is, do we want to lose this belief - that America exists for the reason that it is a place of new beginnings. The world has seen us as such - - a place that one can make a new life and prosper. Throughout our episodes of decimating the Native Americans and the history of slavery and Jim Crow, the world has continued to see us as a place of refuge and hope. It was, and may, continue to be.

Our current efforts of deportation and exclusion is contrary to the very belief and mythology of America. Our very reason for being was to offer a place for others to come and prosper. If one were to look around, that has been a continuous belief in ourselves and our place in the world since the first boat arrived. And it continues to fulfill that dream.

The current question is this. If we lose this belief in ourselves and our country; this belief that America continues to be a place of refuge and opportunity, what do we have? What is to replace our reason for existence as a people and a country? It doesn't appear we have a replacement near at hand.

We are not cut out to be an empire even though we have the power to be one and some think we are. Some give voice to the idea that our reason d'etre, now, is to bring America to the rest of the world. I suppose that would solve the perceived problem of people coming to America for freedom and opportunity. But this is something we are not very good at - - Iraq and Afghanistan are examples.

The issue as I see it is this: If we lose our mythology, our national idea as a place of refuge and opportunity, we have nothing to replace it? Am I missing something, or is there another belief system, another mythology, another reason out there ready to replace the one we have and have had since the beginning. I don't see it.

Our current administration, the current leadership of this country offers no alternative. The accumulation of wealth seems to be our only goal. Some of us have succeeded in the effort to accumulate money and things and houses - - some of us, a minority of us. Some of us are insatiable; never enough - - the continuous effort to accumulate. Is this what we are all about?

So to repeat the question, if we lose the idea that we are the land of opportunity and freedom, what do we replace it with? Our current momentum is to reject this view of ourselves. No people, no group of people, have ever existed without some idea of themselves and their reason for being. If we decide to discard our mythology and our reason for being America, we will need to find something to replace it.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

04/11/2026

EDUCATIONALLY SPEAKING

If one were to take a look, or in other words think about, our current administration here in the United States, one must come away rather concerned. If one were then to consider the rest of the world, especially Europe and Asia, one can see that the leadership of the people in charge in those places is, for the most part, educated. This is whether you agree with their politics or not.

This is not just currently. Historically the countries of Europe have had an educated class, usually upper crust but not entirely. These are the people who have traditionally been in charge. If one were to look at Chinese history, in order to even work in the administration of government, one had to pass exams: in other words be educated. In China this requirement is of several thousand years standing. The Chinese have always and continue to believe that education is important not only for the people who are in charge, who are running the country, but for everyone.

Then we turn to look at ourselves. Let's have a little honesty here. We are currently and have been often led by men, mostly men, who are uneducated and know very little. The latest examples in American life are George Bush the Second and Donald Trump.

It is unequivocally clear: these two men don't know anything and were and are uninterested in correcting the lack. There can be no legitimate argument to the contrary. We elect leaders in this country, on a regular basis, that clearly are ignorant, uneducated, and seemingly not very bright. This is not secret stuff: it is apparent to anyone who pays attention.

So, what is it about us, us Americans, that will allow ourselves to be led by such people? Do we simply not care and will vote for anyone who will tell us what we want to hear? This is not a positive sign for either our current situation or our future. Here in the US, meaning us Americans again, we don't seem to care about education or being educated. Being educated means, among other things, having some idea of what is happening in the world now and historically and how this affects us personally and as a civilization and what it means for our descendants. It doesn't signify employability - that's being trained to do a job and does not constitute an education.

One might from this, project our future as a country and as a civilization; it does not seem to be something to look forward to. One can not survive for any length of time not knowing anything. It simply doesn't work that way - whether you are sitting by a campfire at your cave in 10,000 B.C. or on your sofa in front of your TV today. This applies not only to individuals, but to countries and civilizations. When the people who are in charge know nothing as is the situation here, the possibilities of disaster are multiplied many times.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

04/08/2026

03/30/2026

03/26/2026

THE LIBRARY

A library normally has thousands of books. We should take this as a fact, as a basis of our discussion. A second well-known fact, or projection if you must, is that I, or you, or anyone will not read all the books available in any given library. These two notions should be uncontestable to anyone who has ever been in a library.

We currently have a set of people who complain and not only complain, but demand that certain books should either not appear in a library or if present, be disappeared so that they no longer are available to those who might want to read them.

These people have the view that their opinion of a book should determine its availability to the public in general. The current hullabaloo in Bondurant is a case in point. As a person who reads books, the idea that some person or persons unknown to me can decide what I have available to read, is simply untenable. Who are these people?

If you don't want your kid to read a book, tell your kid not to read the book. What is so difficult about this? If you do not have the ability to keep your kid from reading a book that your kid wants to read, you might want to reconsider your role as a parent. Or, consider your own deficiencies in not understanding that not every one has your view of what is appropriate reading and what is not.

I understand that this library thing has a religious element. When it comes to a book about gay people or gay kids or a gay life, objections are raised that may have their basis in a person's religious beliefs. But you know what! I don't have the same belief and your belief should not have any effect on me or others who do not share your particular belief. If I want to read a book about a particular subject, what is it to you! By the way, what is your view of THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO or of the KORAN or of MEIN KAMPF?

I would project that if you are a person that doesn't want your kid to read a certain book, you are a person that is perfectly content that your kid not read any book. Books are considered dangerous things and the view appears to be they can cause a great deal of trouble to someone set in his or her ways and therefore some will do whatever necessary to maintain a maximum amount of ignorance in themselves and in their children.

This piece is not an exercise in literary criticism, but what the book deniers do not understand is that a novel is not written for the purpose of convincing the reader to behave or identify in a certain way, a novel is written to tell you the way things are - - life as it is. Denying access to a novel about gay people does not keep you from being gay, but it does deny you the knowledge that there actually are gay people and they lead gay lives.

The question is "Why should your kid be as ignorant as you?" Are you the ruler in charge of ignorance; the maintainer of unknowing? This fight for ignorance and set beliefs has been fought for centuries. And as we can see, the fight continues and we must recognize it for what it is. It is not a war against gay people or s*x or unrecognized behavior, it is a war on books - this is what it has always been.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

03/21/2026

THE SEARCH FOR INTELLIGENT LIFE

The search for intelligent life in the universe continues with new telescopes, computerized data, and now presumably AI. A bacteria or a virus will do - any biological form will assure us that there is indeed life and intelligence out there somewhere. The presumption being that where there is life, there is intelligence.

Our current situation here on earth is illustrative however: life and intelligence are not necessarily concurrent. One does not presuppose the other. The number of life forms found on earth has yet to be determined with any certainty; it's a really big number. I would suspect that if life, as we know it, can be located on another planet, it will not take the form of a solitary creature. This should be considered a certainty if we take earth as an example. Every biological unit on this planet will be eaten by other biological units, hence you need more than one for life to exist. These biological units may have a form of intelligence; some more than others. But if life demands intelligence, all life forms presumably have some, at least enough to keep themselves alive.

It follows that if there is life as we understand it on other planets there must be more than one solitary version. A little reason goes a long way in understanding the difference between what is intelligible and what is unintelligible. But back to earth. We, meaning us earthlings, homo sapiens in particular, pride ourselves on our intelligence. We have concluded that we are an intelligent life form.

I would suggest that this conclusion does not necessarily comport with the facts. Examples are endless and illustrative; we are all aware of human activities that defy reason and logic, and indeed, can not be attributed to intelligent life. Our legislative bodies are a prime example of human hubris in this regard. These bodies of biological units (legislatures) presume themselves to be not only adequate to the tasks given them, but of the superior understanding necessary to regulate the behavior of all other biological units within their grasp - - meaning you and me.

If one were to actually look at what our legislative bodies do and how what they do affects you and me, one might quickly gain the idea that the search for intelligent life might be of more benefit if we were to look a little less celestially. It would be significant if we found life, intelligent or not, on some other planet in the universe, but it seems to me that it would be more significant if we could find some here on earth. On first glance there doesn't appear to be much intelligence locally and especially in our legislative bodies.

One must not get the notion that I am casting unfounded and disparaging remarks about our elected representatives which in turn reflect on the people who elect them. But if one were to look at the situation without preconceived notions, one must necessarily come to the conclusion that our idea of intelligent life here on earth needs an adjustment.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

03/13/2026

NO MISMATCHES ALLOWED

As Iowans we should be proud of our legislative efforts. We are a State that is leading the nation in extinguishing any diversity and our latest effort needs commendation. Senate File 579 signed by Governor Reynolds says that an Iowa city can't give its citizens more civil rights that Iowa gives them. A necessary development, don't you think? We simply don't want some people to have more rights than other people have; or, as the Governor would say, we do not want our civil rights "mismatched".

And we certainly don't want a person living in Des Moines to have more civil rights than a person living in Waukee - - for instance. It just wouldn't be right. Or what about Newton? It certainly wouldn't be appropriate for the citizens of Newton to have more civil rights than a person living in Colfax or Sully - - for example.

What Senate File 579 says explicitly is that a municipality cannot decide for themselves what is unfair or discriminatory. Only the State of Iowa can do that. So let's say that Newton, for instance, determines that a restaurant can not deny service to a person wearing a cap. Since the Iowa Civil Rights code says nothing about caps, Newton would not be able to protect your right to wear a cap while eating your lunch. It may be discriminatory, but it is not forbidden.

Apparently, what has caused all this ruckus is the idea that some people would like to identify as something other than simply male or female. We have taken particular offense to this idea. What Iowa has decided to do is to declare that you are either a male or are female and that's the end of it. How or why this came about is not clear, but it seems to be the case.

Self-identity is no longer allowed. I am not to suggest, at least publicly, that even though I may have the body of a male, I have the hormones and mental traits of a girl. No more of that- - not allowed, verboten. It could destroy civil society which is already teetering dangerously.

Now I realize I said the same thing about sames*x marriage and things didn't fall apart, but this has got to be different surely. This goes way beyond sames*x marriage; when a gay person says they are gay they are not saying they are female when they are clearly male. This transgender stuff is not acceptable and will result in total social catastrophe - - our whole belief system will collapse and anarchy will result. We simply can't let some big bulky guy walk up to us and say, "Hey, I may look like a man, but I'm really a woman."

Not happening folks! Enough is enough and we should applaud our legislature in attending to things that are really important; those things which will make our lives better.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo