Working on another post -- taking a detailed look at more of what John was up to in 2004 and 2005.
But in the course of pulling together all the documents I’m collecting for that I stumbled upon the terms of John’s supervised release from on his federal gun charges, and as I looked them over again I thought they’d be interesting to share.
John was released from federal prison on October 26 2012. As part of his federal sentence -- both of them, because remember his original sentence was reduced by ½ after he testified against Jeff Hoover -- John was put on ‘supervised release’ for five years. Similar to probation, supervised release includes a number of restrictions and requirements that John must adhere to. He will be subject to these restrictions until 2017, at a minimum.
A full copy of the terms of John’s supervised release is linked here, but here are a few of the more interesting ones:
But in the course of pulling together all the documents I’m collecting for that I stumbled upon the terms of John’s supervised release from on his federal gun charges, and as I looked them over again I thought they’d be interesting to share.
John was released from federal prison on October 26 2012. As part of his federal sentence -- both of them, because remember his original sentence was reduced by ½ after he testified against Jeff Hoover -- John was put on ‘supervised release’ for five years. Similar to probation, supervised release includes a number of restrictions and requirements that John must adhere to. He will be subject to these restrictions until 2017, at a minimum.
A full copy of the terms of John’s supervised release is linked here, but here are a few of the more interesting ones:
The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime.
That one right there should prove hard for John--he’s been in trouble with the law for practically his entire life.
The defendant shall not possess a firearm, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon.
I guess no more gun-running for the Hell’s Angels. Sure hope they got their last shipment.
The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance. The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. The defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the court.
As we’ll see soon, there’s good reason to check up on John when it comes to drugs.
The defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer;
Hmmm - I heard a rumor John’s been out of town lately. I wonder if he bothered to let his probation officer know.
The defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation, unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons;
Note that it says a “lawful occupation”. I wonder what John’s doing for income these days.
This next one would be hard enough …
This next one would be hard enough …
The defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substances, except as prescribed by a physician;
… except that they changed it, just for John:
Paragraph # 7 of the Standard Conditions of supervision is modified, i.e., instead of merely refraining from excessive use of alcohol, the defendant shall not purchase or possess, use, distribute, or administer any alcohol, just the same as any other narcotic or controlled substance.
So, no drinking of any kind whatsoever for John, until November 2017. We know John does like his bars so I imagine this must be really hard. I wonder what his drink of choice was.
The defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony, unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer;
We know from past reporting that many of John’s acquaintances are felons, as are some family members too. I sure hope John remembered to get permission to associate with each of them.
Here are two others they added especially for John:
Here are two others they added especially for John:
The defendant shall be subject to the search of the defendant’s premises, vehicle or person, day or night, with or without a warrant, at the request of the probation officer to determine the presence of alcohol and/or controlled substances, firearms or any other contraband. Any such items found may be seized by the probation officer. This condition may be invoked with or without the cooperation of law enforcement officers.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (d), the defendant shall submit to a drug test within fifteen (15) days of release on supervised release and at least two (2) periodic drug tests thereafter to determine whether the defendant is using a controlled substance. Further, the defendant shall submit to such testing as requested by any probation officer to detect the presence of alcohol or controlled substances in the defendant’s body fluids and to determine whether the defendant has used any of those substances. Based on the defendant’s ability to pay, the defendant shall pay for the collection of urine samples to be tested for the presence of alcohol and/or controlled substances in an amount to be determined by the probation officer.
They really want to make sure he’s not drinking or using drugs. I guess they don't trust John very much.
But this one I found most interesting:
But this one I found most interesting:
As directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant’s criminal record or personal history or characteristics and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the defendant’s compliance with such notification requirement.
I wonder if John has been fully truthful in notifying everyone about the risks that may be “occasioned by his criminal record, personal history and characteristics.” John’s supporters like to say he’s been determined to be a “fit father.” Of course it’s easy to get someone to say you’re a fit father if you lie and don’t tell them about all the things you’ve done. Like the burglaries. And the robberies. And your hiding the knowledge of a double murder. And the drug trafficking. And the gun running. And the underage strippers at the club you own. And some stuff we haven’t even gotten to yet. Yup, aside from all of that I’m sure John’s pretty great.
But oh yes before I forget--what happens if John breaks one of these rules? Federal law describes three types of violations of supervised release--Grade A, B and C violations. According to Wikipedia:
But oh yes before I forget--what happens if John breaks one of these rules? Federal law describes three types of violations of supervised release--Grade A, B and C violations. According to Wikipedia:
Grade A Violations are conduct constituting (A) a federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year that (i) is a crime of violence, (ii) is a controlled substance offense, or (iii) involves possession of a firearm or destructive device of a type described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a); or (B) any other federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding twenty years. Grade B Violations are conduct constituting any other federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. Grade C Violations are conduct constituting (A) a federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or less; or (B) a violation of any other condition of supervision. The Guidelines state that the court "shall" revoke probation or supervised release upon a finding of a Grade A or B violation, and "may" revoke it upon a finding of a Grade C violation.
So how much additional time in jail might John get if he violated any condition of his supervised release? Because John was adjudicated a Level IV criminal at his sentencing, anywhere from 6-30 months, depending on the violation:
Oh, and John doesn’t have to be convicted of anything for this to happen. Supervised release hearings run on ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ not ‘guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’, so merely a showing that John more likely than not broke the rules would be enough to get his butt thrown back in jail. And have more supervised release tacked on to the end of his sentence, too.
And what would happen to Sonya then? Because let’s face it, John doesn’t have a great track record … no, scratch that -- John has no track record -- of being able to stay straight for very long. Why risk the safety, security, stability and well-being of a nine-year-old girl on the hope that John will be able to do something he’s never managed to do in his entire life?
And what would happen to Sonya then? Because let’s face it, John doesn’t have a great track record … no, scratch that -- John has no track record -- of being able to stay straight for very long. Why risk the safety, security, stability and well-being of a nine-year-old girl on the hope that John will be able to do something he’s never managed to do in his entire life?