1

Table of Contents:Resume…………………………………………………………………………………………2

Professional References…………………………………………………….3

Exemplars of my Work……………………………………………...........5

Statement of Criminal Justice Philosophy…………………………23

Executive Summary………………………………………………………….26

Five Year Plan (Samples Available)

Audio Visual Projects…………………………………………………………………………….3

(Available for viewing upon request.)

Justice Reform Proposal……………………………………………………36

2

Stacy Jones 273 South Copper DriveApache Junction, AZ 85120

cell: (928) 263-8549stacywingjones@yahoo.com

ObjectivesAssist the community and offenders in providing tools to reduce crime and promote recidivism and reform to bring forth productive members of society.Experience

NAZCARE-Center Manager, Apache Junction, AZ10/02/2015-presentProvide Behavioral Health experience and tools to assist in drug education, mental health support and recovery, justice reform, and compliance with court order programs and treatment. Daily operations of center to run efficiently, full staffed, in compliance with State of Arizona, and work with health care providers, families, and court to assist members in recovery goals.

BKASSETS, Mesa Arizona 4/05/2003-3/6/2009Assist Trustees and Attorneys nationwide with Federal Bankruptcy Court document perpetration, discovery, and schedules of debtors. Constant communication with courts and Trustees regarding abandonment or sale of asset to secure funds for creditors.

Auto Zone Inc., -Commercial Manager Mesa Arizona 2/7/1999-11/07/2003Effectively ensure parts were supplied to commercial clients while managing staff to ensure speedy and safe delivery of goods.

3

SKILLS

Proficiency Microsoft, Internet Dissertation Legal Research Community Outreach National Peer Support Specialist Certification Behavior Health Professional (pending) SMART Recovery, addictions specialist Managerial skills Daily Operations, Facility Functions Crisis Management Working with Diverse Populations Advocacy Prevention Services Monthly Reporting of Progress to Courts and Providers Clinical Documentation Efficiently managed caseloads of 185 persons

AWARDS

War on Drugs Essay, 1998 Presidents List, 2004-2015 Magna Cum Laude 2004-2015 National Society of Collegiate Scholars, Academically Nominated Lifelong Member

ACOMPISHMENTS

Communicated effectively to break barriers of communication to build rapport Facilitated ART meeting with courts and behavior health providers to manage care Successfully managed daily operations of center and center staff Handled crisis situations immediately to preserve life and prevent harm of self or others Worked with courts ensuring mental health and reform progress was accomplished Securing housing, treatment, and training to improve quality of life Facilitated groups promoting recovery Strengthened resources and community relationships through outreach Provided resources to assist in focusing on freedom, mind, body, and well being Mediated family support and tools to transition from incarceration & inpatient institutions

to stability Positively reduced barriers in care

4

EDUCATION

Masters Criminal Justice Grand Canyon University 2015-2016Emphasis: Legal Studies 3.6 GPA

Bachelor Criminal Justice Grand Canyon University 2014-2012Grade: Distinction 3.9

Associate Criminal Justice Everest University 2009-2011Grade: Distinction 4.0

References: Available Upon Request

5

Exemplars of Writing “My” Graduate Courses

6

Stacy JonesAttorney at Law156 Oak Street

Central City, CA 91111Tel. 510-555-1212 Fax, 510-555-1211

October 26, 2016

Tim Money Statutory AgentCollect ‘R ElseCollection Agency78 Winding RoadCentral City, CA 91111Re: Dora Speckles

Dear Tim Money:

I am writing on behalf of my client Dora Speckles, regarding her claim for civil injuries due to Dora under the violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I have been advised to direct my correspondence directly to you as the Statutory Agent for Collect ‘R Else. After reviewing the recorded calls made to my client in violation of (cite communication fair debt statute) and the statement from my client’s former employer Allied Title Company stating reason for termination, I conclude a violation of the fair debt practices has occurred through communication with Collect ‘R Else towards my client. I find Collect ‘R Else civilly liable for damages to Dora Speckles and strongly feel an early settlement is in the best interest of both parties. The following information provides sufficient justification for our offer of settlement.

Factual Basis Dora Speckles, my client acquired $7,000 worth of credit card debt due being uninured in a health related issue. My client was unable to work for health related reasons for several months and subsequently unable to make payments towards the $7,000 debt. Once Dora was physically able to work, she obtained at job at a small business office. The account for the debt of $7,000 was turned over to your collection agency Collect R’ Else via the credit card authority. Collect ‘R Else discovered Dora Speckles place of employment and began to place calls to her place of

7

employment, Allied Title Company. Various telephone recordings reflect Collect ‘R Else demanding immediate payment on the debt owed. The telephone recordings also show Dora Speckles requesting calls not to be made to her place of employment as it is a violation of Allied Title Company policy and could result in termination. Dora was heard on numerous calls stating, “non-emergency calls were not allowed at work and demanded the calls cease”. Even still, Dora received a call from Collect ‘R Else daily over the period of two weeks. Dora Speckles employment was terminated. Confirmation from Allied Title Company notes, Dora worked as a receptionist and was fired due to the constant personal calls. Dora Speckles suffered from depression and anxiety as a result of losing her job and fear of losing current job once Collect ‘R Else discovered the current place of employment. A copy of the recorded phone calls, transcripts, and statement from Allied Title Company is enclosed with this correspondence. I am legally informing you to cease further direct contact with Debora Speckles at any place of employment or at home. I am also demanding damages for your conduct under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: Communication in connection with debt collect [15 U.S.C.1692c].

Legal BasisThe law in this case is very clear. Collect ‘R Else has violated the rights of Dora S. under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: Communication in connection with debt collect [15 U.S.C.1692c]. General Communication with the Consumer: The law states you are not legally allowed to communicate with a consumer in connection with any debt without prior consent from the consumer given directly to Collect ‘R Else or the express permission from the court of competent jurisdiction. You did not have the express permission from any competent court from any jurisdiction. In fact, Dora S. specifically demanded calls to not be placed to her place of employment. [15 U.S.C.1692c] further forbids contact from a consumer to collect a debt at any unusual place which would be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. If what Collection ‘R Else should have known to be convenient, the law spells out the times of 8:00 am-9:00 pm in the time zone of California and at the consumer’s location of residence. You are forbidden by law to contact the palace of employment with knowledge of calls being prohibited by the employer and without consent of the consumer, as stated. Furthermore, you are in Civilly Liable for communicating with Allied Title Company through disclosing the debt and inquiring about Dora S. employment in an attempt to collect the debt under [15 U.S.C.1692k]. To reintegrate, permission to contact was not given to you by Dora S. under [15 U.S.C.1692k].

Injuries and DamagesActual damages of $4,000Dora S. was paid $500.00 per week and out of work for 8 weeks due to your violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Additional damages of $1,000.00 as a result of the depression and anxiety due to losing her job and your violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Settlement OfferIn view of the clear liability and proof of damages and injuries, my client is willing to settle this matter for the sum of $5,000.00 for failing to comply with the laws stated herein. I believe this to be more than fair and reasonable and hope to hear from you soon. The offer will remain open for 30 days.

8

Sincerely,

Stacy JonesAttorney at Law

RJ: op

Enclosures: (7)cc: Dora S.

9

ESTRADA V RHODE ISLAND LEGAL ISSUES

BACKROUND ESTRADA V. RHOLE ISLAND 594 F.3d 56, 2010

July 11, 2016 one of the Plaintiffs Carlos Tamup was driving in Rhode Island with

fourteen other passengers. Tamup failed to use a turn signal while switching lanes on a two lane

road. Officer Thomas Chabot pulled the vehicle over and asked for driver’s license, insurance,

and registration. Officer Thomas Chabot conducted a pat down search of Tamup. The remaining

passengers in the vehicle were asked for identification and a clear language barrier existed.

Officer Chabot sought translation assistance from Carlos Tamup, the driver.

All but two of the passengers were able to produce identification that showed citizenship

through state issued identification and were not able to do so. Two cards shown by the

passengers were from the Consulate in Guatemala. Identification from the remaining of the

fifteen drivers included gym memberships and cards that were not sufficient to prove identity.

Carlos Tamup exited the van for a moment of time when a ball fell out of the car, which resulted

in Officer Thomas Chabot patting down Carlos Tamup a second time. Officer Thomas Chabot

detained the members of the car and a State Trooper followed the vehicle to ICE. At this point,

ICE took over.

Principal Legal Issues

The legal issues surrounding the racial profiling and decision of the court are based around facts

of law and the events during the traffic stop. The Plaintiffs alleged their fourth amendment

Constitutional rights were deprived. The twelve Plaintiffs in Estrada v. Rhode Island believe,

10

Officer Thomas Chabot racially profiled them and had no reason to ask for identification or legal

status after Carlos Tamup provided necessary documentation. Carlos Tamup felt as if his second

pat down was illegal. They also alleged, the occupants of the vehicle had not right to be detained,

citizenship challenged, or have involvement of Immigration Custom Enforcement (ICE). In

unison, the Plaintiffs felt a violation of the Rhode Island Racial Profiling Act of 2004 was

violated by Officer Thomas Chabot. The parties also believe a violation of their fourth and

fourteenth amendment had been violated.

Circuit Judges Opinion by Which the Decision Was Based

Officer Thomas Chabot was justified in asking for the identification of drivers and did not

violate the rights of the occupants of vehicle per United States v. Chaney 584 F.3D20, 27 (2009).

The court found the officer to be protected from the second pat down of Carols based on the

precedent case of Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1,88 S.Ct. 1868,20 L. ED 2D, 889, (1968). The

unknown number of actual persons in the vehicle per the deposition of the Plaintiffs and

Appellants varied and the true number was assumed by the number involved in this class action

case. Officer Thomas Chabot conducted a Terry pat once Carlos Tamup left the vehicle to

retrieve the ball and was not sure if Carlos Tamup had anything that would endanger the officer

or public. Another factor was based around the number of persons in the vehicle per the officer

U.S. v. Cruz 156, F.3d, 22, 26 (1998).

The court affirmed, Officer Chabot did not violate the Fourth Amendment by changing

the scope of the traffic stop after most passengers could not supply legitimate identification,

could not communicate without translation, and provided identification showing citizenship to

another country. Officer Chabot was within his right to change the scope of the stop based on

probable cause due to these things to determine if a crime was being committed. The judge

11

allowed profiling also based on the length of the stop, actions, and questions being appropriate

under the scope of an officer’s job as a police officer. An officer is able to draw inferences from

the facts combined with knowledge and experiences as an officer.

United States v. Chhein 266 F.3d, 1; 2001 U.S. App Lexis 20881. Chhein was cited stating:

“the pat down search was reasonable, appropriate, and provided information giving the officer

reasonable suspicion to continue down a minimally intrusive path that the officer had chosen to

take” (Chhein 2001). Questions that had followed the pat down were reasonable even if the

questions were not directly related to failing to use a turn signal and the length of time for the

stop and involvement of ICE officials was warranted.

The judge did not find a violation of the fourth or fourteenth amendment and did not view

any illegal search and seizure on part of officer Chabot. Officer Chabot had reason to be

suspicious “under the totality of circumstances” United States v. McKoy, 428 F.d, 38, 39 (2005).

Officer Chabot also did not violate the fourth amendment right by asking for information to

prove citizenship, identification, or asking if they were United States Citizens.

A law review citing United States v. Brignoni-Ponce 422 U.S. 873 (1975) agreed in that a

person could not be stopped merely based on the question of immigration status. In the case of

Estrada, the vehicle was stopped originally for a moving violation. United States v. Arizona

brought forth by SB1070 was also cited to show the difference between actual racial profiling

and doing your job when reasonable suspicion exits to believe a crime is being committed. In

United States v. Arizona, actual profiling was occurring with enforcement solely on citizenship

and immigration status and amendments to the law forbid the act of stopping a person based on

race.

12

References

http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/

http://www.lexisnexis.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/hottopics/lnacademic/

http://harvardlawreview.org/

United States v. Arizona, Hans von Spakovsky and Jack Park, supra note 5.

13

TENTH AMENDMENT HISTORY AND PURPOSE

TENTH AMENDMENT U.S. CONSTIUTION

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, neither prohibited

by towards the states are reserved to the states or the people respectively.” (2010). Since the

ratification of the tenth amendment on December 15, 1971, a line has been drawn to yield to the

states and the people that lines had been drawn between state and federal powers through the

Constitution. Our Constitution contains powers not granted to the government through the

federal government. Division and questions have come about since the ratification that included

the Bill of Right containing the first ten amendments which consisted of jurisdiction and

boundary issues regarding the rights of the federal government and the sates towards the people

of the nation. “The Constitution fought to have powers of liberty secured through the via

separation of powers and of the federal government and less of rights of the people” (Pfiffner, J.

P. 2016).

HISTORY OF TENTH AMENDMENT

Historically, the main focus of the tenth amendment is to define federalism. Due to federalism,

questions of law and territory define the two levels of government. United States federal

government governs laws for the nation an all states, cities, towns and all the encompasses the

United States. States have the power under the tenth amendment to decipher what laws are

needed and should be binding for the member of the states. Clearly, the tenth amendment makes

14

exceptions for laws that infringe on the law of the land which is the United States Constitution

that governs us all as a society.

Our Constitution grants power to the federal government to have jurisdiction over matter

that concern national security or federal law expressly. However, federalism does not allow for

laws posed upon society to surpass the scope or jurisdiction of federal law. The powers of the

federal government are limited through the tenth amendment and can only proceed in matters of

law for issues expressly stated or enumerated specifically through the Constitution of the United

States of America. Powers of the Constitution between federal and state is depended on the

interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution and how they are then interpreted to direct the

federalism, states, and our nation as a whole. Through the tenth amendment, the states have the

powers granted to them that are not expressly given to the federal government or given to them

expressly through the Constitution of the United States (Archives n.d).

PURPOSE

The purpose of the tenth amendment sums up the amendments that encompass numbers 1-10.

Citizens of the nation are given an affirmation, the actual structure visualized for the federal

government and the limited powers that exists. The tenth amendment simply works against

intrusion against the federal government toward the authority of the state concerning individual

liberties. Meaning, powers in effect to the federal government are solely and only granted to it

through the constitution (1998).

SIMILAR PROVISONS UNDER ARIZONA STATE LAW

Arizona does and does not have similar provision against the tenth amendment that

include a direct difference between state and federal laws. It is stated: “We the people of Arizona

due to the almighty God for our liberties do uphold this Constitution (AZ legislature n.d).

15

Arizona distinguishes a difference between the state and federal government in the

acknowledgment of boundaries, namely in Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution. I would state

this provision being named does diversity the duties of the federal government from the

boundaries located within Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution. Meaning, guidelines are present

and specifically stated as to what authority and implementation of laws are given to Arizona

through virtue of the State Constitution. However, it is also similar in realizing, the federal

government has limited powers and a say against acts of the states less the controversy, doubt, or

effect or treading on federal law. The issue is simply one of many that involves question,

boundaries, and jurisdiction issues through separation of power and the division of limited

powers.

The specific provision given to the states via federal law through the Constitution are

those of the Bill of Rights 1-10 express to the federal government and the articles of Arizona 1-

30 similar, different in scope and intended for state discretion without violating federal laws, that

govern us all. The purpose being to regulate the division of laws concerning federal government

as a whole in which we all abide and state laws which are reserved for the states and the people.

The tenth amendment focuses on limited jurisdiction given the scope of the laws and expressed

jurisdiction for each causing boundaries through the letter of the law.

.

16

References

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federalism

Jensen, E. M., & Entin, J. L. (1998). Commandeering, the Tenth Amendment, and the

federal requisition power: New York v. United States. Constitutional Commentary, 15(2), 355.

Orbach, B. Y., Callahan, K. S., & Lindemenn, L. M. (2010). ARMING STATES'

RIGHTS: FEDERALISM, PRIVATE LAWMAKERS, AND THE BATTERING RAM

STRATEGY. Arizona Law Review, 52(4), 1161-1206.

Pfiffner, J. P. (2016). The Contemporary Presidency: Magna Carta and the Contemporary

Presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 46(1), 140-157.

17

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

Case Brief Summary

Judicial History

Prior to trial, Dickerson plead for the trial court to suppress the evidence of cocaine discovered on respondents’ person. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and the trial continued. Dickerson lost at trial and was convicted. The decision of the court was appealed. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in that, the evidence used to convict Dickerson should have been suppressed based on how the evidence was obtained. A Writ of Certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court to decipher is suppression of the evidence was warranted.

Facts

November 9, 1989, Minnesota Officers were on patrol in the northern area of the Minnesota, near a well-known crack house. At 8:15 pm, officers observed respondent. Dickerson caught view of police and acted suspiciously and attempted to flee. During a pat down search, officers discovered cocaine on respondents’ person. Dickerson was found guilty and convicted.

Issues

Had the Fourth Amendment Rights of Dickerson had been violated through officers conducting a legal pat down to investigate possible criminal activity and check for weapons and instead sizing cocaine and allowing the cocaine to be included as evidence against the respondent.

Does the Plain View Doctrine apply in this case towards the search and evidence obtained?

Rules

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.1, 29 L. ED. 2d 889, 88 S. CT.1868 (1968). Due to Terry v. Ohio Officers were justified in stopping and frisking Dickerson in order to investigate the possibility of the Dickerson engaging in criminal activity, or possibly being a threat to officers or the public.

Plain View Doctrine: Officers have the legal right to access anything in officer’s vision that is not hidden, in plain view, or has probable cause to suspect the existence of as a result of sight or smell.

Due to Terry v. Ohio Officers were justified in stopping and frisking Dickerson in order to investigate the possibility of the Dickerson engaging in criminal activity, or possibly being a threat to officers or the public.

Plain View Doctrine: Officers have the legal right to access anything in officer’s vision that is not hidden, in plain view, or has probable cause to suspect the existence of as a result of sight or smell.

18

ANAYSIS

The Fourth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment as preceded in Map v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Map v. Ohio concluded, persons have the right to be secure their persons, houses, papers, and effects and against unreasonable searches and seizures.

However, Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S.1, 29 L. ED. 2d 889, 88 S. CT.1868 (1968) held an officer who observes unusual conduct causing the officer to believe based on experience that a crime is being committed can legally stop the suspect to ask questions in order to determine or disprove that criminal activity is indeed occurring. Likewise, should the officer determine during questioning the suspect is carrying a weapon which could be used to harm the officer or the public, officers can legally conduct a limited pat down search. Limited pat down searches are conducted to ensure the safety of officers and the public against weapons and not to obtain illegal evidence. The search being limited only within the scope of finding weapons. Under Terry, a protective search exceeding what is deemed necessary to check for weapons is not valid and the fruits yielded should be surpassed.

Regarding Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990). To obtain evidence through a warrantless seizure of an object in plain view, two prongs must be meant. The object must be in “plain view” and the officer must have the lawful right to obtain the object without assistant. A violation of the Fourth Amendment rights should also be upheld.

In the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), officers we well within the scope Terry, supra in stopping Dickerson to investigate the suspicion of illegal activity based on experience and the respondent fleeing after viewing officers at the known “crack house”. However, officers violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the respondent in exceeding the pat down through exceeding the scope of a limited pat down to ensure the safety of officers and the public. Officers did not find and weapons and conducted an illegal search and seizure resulting in the small amount of cocaine found on the person. The cocaine seized was seized illegally due to being obtained beyond the scope of a limited pat down and a violation of respondent’s guaranteed Fourth Amendment rights. As with Terry, supra the fruits yielded were should have suppressed.

19

DISCOVERY and MOTION OF LIMITY ARIZONA

Rules Concerning a Motion

Much like the other fifty states, Arizona adheres to rules of the court in filing discovery

motion and motions alike. Likewise, Arizona Statutes specifically state rules concerning a

motion which include time limits to file, expectations to file, and other limitation governed by

the individual state respectively and the correct authority cited. Case in point as mentioned by

Hames and Ekern, “The Court is obligated to follow the rules of the authorities which were cited

supposing the authorities are the appropriate authorities cited” (Hames and Ekern, 2015, p 393).

Meaning, your state court requires the mandatory citation from your respected state constitution

and the statutory laws of the state in the jurisdiction of the case resides.

Hames and Ekern noted, “a motion is a request for a court order in conjunction with a

case that is already pending in court” (Hames & Ekern, 2015, p. 430). Rules concern a motion

also vary based on the rules of the court within the jurisdiction you live in. Arizona also follow

local rules of the court as well as rules of the court. The rules of the court inform the prepare of

what the motion or documents should contain. Rules also express exactly how the documents

should be set up, how to file, and the consequences of not following the rules of the court.

Format and Filing a Motion of Limity

Rule 35.1 of the Arizona Revised Statues states, “unless it is otherwise noted in the rules,

motions are expected to be typed and completed on 8.5 x11 inch paper” 16AA.R. S Rules Crim.

20

Proc., Rule 35.1. The Court rules also require the motion to be very short and to the point. In

fact, a memorandum is also required to accompany the motion and is expected to be “brief” as

well. The purpose or nature of what is being sought should also be written clearly, in a short and

sweet manner.

Each party has the obligation to ensure the other party is provided with the statutes, legal

basis, factual grounds surrounding the motion, and credible citations of authorities used. Rule

35.1 also supplies ten days for each party to file the motion and respond. Granted, the rules of the

Arizona Court also supply three days for the moving party to file a respond and ensure a reply is

served to the nonmoving party. A response is not needed unless legal issues are further raised.

The motion is not able to surpass ten pages in length without the consent of the court. WHO

STATED, judges seldom grant more than ten pages for a motion and preferred motions to be no

more than the pages allotted”.

MOTION IN LIMINE and DISCOVERY

As with any motion presented to the court, discovery and motion in limity are crucial

tools used by Attorneys in a case. The purpose of Discovery and Motion in Limine is to cause

testimony, evidence, and other issues of law to be presented early on in the proceedings. The

ultimate goal is to have evidence and testimony not able to be mentioned, heard, or submitted. Of

course, it would depend on what type of motion of limity is utilized and seeks to have the judge

specifically grant the motion for beneficial reasons concerning the case.

Ray noted, three kids of motions of limine are available such as the exclusionary,

inclusionary, and the preclusionary”. (2009). The exclusionary motion of limine would seek to

have a ruling in favor of a specific piece of evidenced ruled as being inadmissible in court. In

fact, the court would not allow the piece of evidence to be mentioned in court at all. Ray also

21

pointed out, preclusionary on the other hand simply buys the judge “time to decide if the

evidence should be allowed into the courtroom via the case and presented to all parties, at trial

“(2009). Whereas, inclusionary would allow the evidence sought to be excluded via the

exclusionary motion to be brought into the case and allowed to be spoken upon.

Discovery and motions of limine alike seek the challenge evidence and testimony

intended to be presented prior to trial. The reasons are generally based around issues of law that

are believed to be a violation of rights, laws, or credibility. Arizona only allows one expert

witness to present for each side and in the specific specialist the expert is legally certified to

speak on (Maricopa.gov). Either side attempting to bring more than one give the rule of the court

would challenge this through a motion. Another example would be statements made by the

defendant who was not properly Mirandized. Such a violation would more likely than not see to

have the case acquitted due to the violation of the defendants’ rights. Judge Jeffery Cole

supports the “importance of understand the rules of the state courts when filing motions and the

understanding of what to motions to file, the impact of contents and how often as being a mistake

non seasoned attorneys often make” (Cole, 2012).

Persuasive writing impacts motions and the court case at hand. Motions are supposed to

be crafted to inform of legal issues, fact of law, legalities, and sway the judge in favor of what

you seek. It is important to “skim the fat off your writing”, noted Younger. (1986). Younger also

mentioned, “a briefer version is always better than a lengthy version” (Younger, 1986). In order

to make a positive impact and impression in your motion, it is important to be conscious of the

words used. Appropriate verbiage provides clarity. On the same note, motions should be drafted,

read, and rewritten. After all, the contents of your motion could cost you the case or assist in

22

winning key parts regarding evidence, testimony, and issue of law. A positive impact could win

the case entirely.

References

www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/LawLibrary/LegalResearch/ArizonaResearch/

ArizonaCourtsResources/courtRules.asp

http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/microsites/files/civil-justice/ncsc-cji-appendices-c.ashx

COLE, H. J. (2012). A Judge's Answers on Evidence. Litigation, 38(2), 7-8

Ray, R. A. (2009). Motions in Limine: To File or Not to File? (Cover story). Proof, 17(4), 1-13.

Younger, I. (1986). Skimming the fat off your writing. ABA Journal, 72(3), 92.

23

Statement of Philosophy

My Philosophy

Socrates stated, “Is this a society I am an active or passive apart of, the society I want it

to be? Is it a good society? Is it just? Are there meaningful alternatives to our way of life and

what is justice anyway?” (Nails, 2014). My philosophy begins with questioning if I am an active

part of the society in which I want to live and accept the diverse decisions of the masse given

various offsets and reasons to not conform to society. Should I in tern conform to be complacent

and compliant with the practice of justice and ignored the ills of society that contribute to crimes

committed, victimization, and ignore the issues rooted to induce crime? No! “Everyone’s

intentions only differ in what each person feels is best for themselves” (Berman, 2014).

My philosophy entails assisting individuals with issues that lead to crime early on

through preventative maintenance. In order to reduce crime, victimization, and create safer

neighborhood people will need to address the issues that result in crime. Treatment includes

getting to the route of the issues such as mental health issues, social, economic, drug and related

issues. I believe, fixing the ills of a person can reduce crime, create safer communities, and

breath positivity into the life of the offender through helping them become productive citizens.

The Rational Choice Theory presented in the Classical Theory suggests, “crimes can be

prevented through deterrents” (Schulz, 2005) However, mandatory minimums, death row, and

three strikes law have not deterred offenders from committing crimes. In the modern era, our

24

society is understanding of the various issues assisting offenders to fray from conforming to the

laws of the land. Perhaps Freud was on to something in noting” our id is takes care of our

primitive needs such as food and sleep. The ego controls the id through setting up boundaries

and the super ego weighs in on choices through morals” (CITE). My philosophy is based on the

foundation of Freud with the notion, needs change and decisions become less moral when

underlying factors of mental illness and drug abuse are what is being feed and the motivator for

crime. Society is full of ills that are non-conforming, understood, and belligerent. To reduce

crime, we must have considered how to address the possible abuse, trauma, drug addiction,

poverty and mental illness. In recognizing and reforming the person with the tools to address the

issue, members of society can be more safe and the cycle of repeat offenders can dwindle. .

How it Developed

My philosophy starts at a ripe young age of eight years old. I was born into a family of respect

for the social norms and family values. I was raised into a family that did not do drugs, drink, or

break the law. My family strived to be the best it could be, even though it was dysfunctional at

times. I came from a family full of law enforcement which was plagued by the repercussions of

life and decisions made. Even still, the choice between right and wrong rang forth in the

installation of what was expected legally and what repercussions were at stake in reality. Legal

consequences thrust on the reality of your actions if you do not tend to consider the reasons

behind the act. (Rickless, 1998).

My home life, my society, my reality was not the realism that I chose to follow. I believed in

right and wrong. It did not matter if you were an officer, like my father or a person breaking the

law. The law was made for everyone and no exception should be made less the letter of the law.

With that said, my philosophy is derived from various theories such as labeling, social

25

disorganization, and through rational choice that has been instilled in us as a philosophy or

reason to not abide my society rules or an excuse to expect more than what is given in return.

Areas of Law in Pursuit of

I plan to work in the area of criminal law and assist those on probation, parole, mentally

ill, or homeless with tools to successfully address the issue that have lead them to the criminal

justice system. My goal is to assist with reform and recidivism while working with drug courts,

probation officers, parole offices, and the State through upcoming Justice Reform programs. My

use of Forensic Peer Support and Behavioral Health Professional experience will assist in

helping to identify the issues, provide support, and provide SMART recovery for addiction

related clientele to assist and promote recovery. Other tools to be used include outpatient

services, life skills, supportive employment and any other services the offended elects to utilize

to remove him or herself from the system and into society as a productive non offending

member.

26

Executive SummaryCover Letter My portfolio will show what I have learned through my journey in Criminal Justice to increase my knowledge of social issues that plague the system. You will also feel my passion and efforts to address the problems offenders face in inadequate preventative care attributed to substance abuse, mental health related issues, behavioral health, life skills not achieved and stigma attached to said issues. I believe addressing these issue could result in positive changes required to reduce the recidivism rate and promote more safe communities through addressing the issues related to mass incarceration with treatment and provide tools to reform those in the system or on the brink of incarceration.

Resume HighlightsThe journey towards reform has already occurred through working directly with those on probation, parole, battling mental health issues to reduce the stigma attached to the label and gain support to be more involved in recovery and treatment assisting in less involved with the criminal justice system, victimization, and more towards community integration and promoting positive changes as an example to others on the journey and as a reminder to society that taking steps towards change, assistance, and retraining is a seed that can grow and spread throughout our communities.

Summary of Stacy Jones:

Career Goals

Ultimately, the goal is to reduce the number of nonviolent offenders who will or currently occupy our justice system through nonviolent offenses and repeat offenders able to be reformed. Reform will occur through evidence based practices and premature maintenance to reduce to numbers associated with mass incarceration as well as the numbers of victims associated with crimes due to offenses by way of individual focus and support while free

27

through use preventative maintenance, courts, mental & behavioral health providers, and those ready for release to succeed and be successful in society.

Work Philosophy People seek help in various different ways even though some are not able to “willing” change and need the intervention of a provider, court, probation, or parole board. Experience brought forth through my education, personal life, and work experience provides strong examples of effecting change and turning lives around for the better of society. “Anyone can teach through a the versus of a book but, people relate more to those who have lived the journey and succeeded” (Jones, 2016). I am an example of reform and know what it takes to help reform others and it shines bright in my work, life, and example.

Projects

(Available for viewing upon request)

Writing Samples………………………………………………...4Examples of my personal writings on my journey towards my Master’s Degree in Criminal Justice with showcasing some of my best work and an example of the beginning to showcase my personal and education growth.

Career Reflection I chose to study criminal justice as juvenile who was once caught in a system that could

have easily had a chance to be productive as a youth given adequate attention and assistance to

thrive and change my course of action. I fully understand the ills of society and the issues that

drive social Science. Through my education, I realize many people who are a part of the system

have issues that could have been address years before victims and becoming a part of the system.

I chose to reflect back on my life and obstacles and educated myself through work experiences,

personal, and dealing with the public to become a part of the solution to reduce victims and

change the course of lives on the brink of entering the system or well embedded in the system

with a second chance provided. My reflections in my career also encompass being a victim of a

28

heinous crime. Justice is something that I understand completely and all sides to the issues that

cause crime to occur, victims to feel a lack of justice, and desperation to reduce the label and be

provided the skills and tools to become a productive member of society. Granted, through my

life and career reflections, I have learned how hard you have to work to do the right thing. It is

easier to do wrong than it is to do right given the work and effort needing to be applied.

Certainly, my writing samples showcase my “then” and “now” progression. Now, what if I told

you, my education halted two weeks into my ninth grade year due to lacking preventative

maintenance and care and becoming a part of the system? I am living proof of positive change

which allows me to help those with my past experience.

29

References

Berman, S. (2014). Prudence and morality: Socrates versus moral philosophers. South African

Journal of Philosophy, 33(4), 381-394. doi:10.1080/02580136.2014.967591

Edward N. Zalta (ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/socrates.

Schulz, S. (2004). Problems with the Versatility Construct of Gottfredson and Hirschi's

General Theory of Crime. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 12(1),

61-82.

Nails, Debra, "Socrates", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition),

Rickless, S. C. (1998). Socrates' moral intellectualism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,

79(4), 355.

30

JUSTICE REFORM PROPOSAL

Criminal Justice Issue

Our nation has 2.2 million people incarcerated. Americans spend approx. 80 billion to

keep offenders who have cycled through the system incarcerated. (BJS, 2015). The White House

noted: “Our criminal justice system releases 700,000 persons annually from Federal Prison or

State Prisons, in the United States. Meanwhile, another 9 million persons are cycling around in

the jails” (White House, n.d). As of this moment, America has a population of 324,971,847 (US

Census, 2016). Those who are incarcerated and let back into the community offend revert back

to crime due to mental health, drug, and substance related issues left untreated.

The issues rest in those in custody not being treated for the issues that cause crime.

Society endures more victimization. As a result, we have an overloaded criminal justice system.

Statistics show 40% of released offenders violated conditions through use of drugs and return

back to prison leaving a trail of victims. Ex-offenders often do not receive rehabilitation of self

to cease crime, change behaviors, deal with substance abuse, mental health issues, life sills, or

learn skills to reform actions leading to recidivism and becoming a productive citizen. “The end

result is a continued strain on the system (BJS, 2016). Those entangled in our justice system are

not given the preventative maintenance, rehabilitation while incarcerated, or skills to thrive upon

release. As of 2013, “50% of Federal inmates and 53% of inmates created violent, property, and

under crimes while under the influence of a substance or alcohol” (Carson, 2014).

As stated previously, offenders have developed the complex level of criminal thinking

and behaviors through not dealing with the issues prior to committing a crime. Direct issues of

criminal activity, drug abuse, and mental health are not worked on as shown through

31

incarceration rates. The Bureau of Justice reports, “The adult correctional system supervised

approximately 6,851,000” (2014). This number clearly shows a need to assist those who are

incarcerated or to reform as an alternative to incarceration and a strong need to focus on fixing

the issue. I intended to put my all into doing so. Addressing the needs of life skills, poverty,

education, substance abuse, and mental health can assist with a foundation of reform through

continued support to become a productive member of society. Severson, Veeh, Bruns & Lee

noted, “The complexity of criminal thinking and behaviors that develop of a period of years

preclude them from being adequately addressed by a single program or intervention” (Severson,

Veeh, Bruns & Lee, 2012). I propose to address all issues and barriers and seek to do so before or

after incarceration.

NAMI notated, “One in Five U.S adults equate to 43.8 million who have experienced

mental health issues annually” (AMI, 2016). Furthermore, a self-reported study has shown 73%

of State females inmates and 55% of males have documented mental health problem as opposed

to 61% of females and 41% of male Federal inmates” (Doris, 2006). The statistical information

shows a lack of preventative maintenance before victimization and lack of preventive treatment

prior to crimes committed, during incarceration, and after reentry.

The figures also show, justice reform is needed as we continue fail victims of crime,

offenders from obtaining treatment. American citizens could have safer neighborhoods, less

victimization, more recidivism, productive citizens, and save money for the states through

treatment. I propose to be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem through providing

evidence based treatment towards reform to obtain the treatment and skills needed to reduce the

number of victims, offenders, and less money spent to warehouse persons.

32

Implementing My Education

I purpose to use my education to acquire a position leading a Justice Reform Department

or comparable program to work directly with those incarcerated, on parole, or probation to bring

forth a decline in recidivism. My weapons of choice include extensive experience in substance

abuse, alcohol, behavior, and mental health experience. Educationally, I am aware of social

issues that clash with public safety and law and order. I have taken many years to study the

issues of society and offenders to better understand how to my education can make a difference.

I find myself to be equipped through life, education, and years of work experience combating the

issues that cause crime and plague the system.

What Education Encompasses

Webster states: “Education is the result produced by instruction, training, or study. As

well as, preparing self or others intellectually for mature life” (2016). The successful completion

of my Master’s Degree in Criminal Justice with emphasis in legal studies shows my passion and

mastery in training. However, I have also acquired numerous training in SMART recovery to

assist those in the system or danger entering the system with substance and addiction abuse. My

educational training and nationwide certification as a Peer Support Specialist III will assist those

with support along the journey to reform, acquire life skills, and gain supported employment to

better oneself.

I purpose to utilize my educational experience, life experience, and work experience in

conjunction with my pending Behavioral Health Professional Certification to further assist the

said members sitting idly and untreated within the criminal justice system. I will use my skills

and education to provide the skills to treat, reform, and motivate them towards being a

productive members of society. My proposal and approach is to bring my health care education

33

and experience together with my life experience and education to reform individuals through

justice and health care reform. “The mental health system has taken on more than just simply

providing treatments and has become involved in such things as housing, employment,

education” (Stanhope & Henwood, n.d). Peer support deals with each case, specific disease, and

need individually to bring froth a wholly recovered person who is fully functional in society and

less strain on the criminal justice system and the public.

Behavioral Health Reform Meets Justice Reform

My proposal is to assist the members of the community who in need of assistance to

reform whether the issue is based on a mental health issues, homeless, addiction, substance, or

other barrier demanding to be addressed to bring down the recidivism and offender rates that we

have seen rise over the last 30 years. I intend to use my “education” for those who are one of the

statics in the system or those in need of breaking the cycle to productivity. Mental health and

crime go hand in hand with social issues that included homelessness, drug addiction, substance

abuse, trauma, and lack of individual care to reform. Assistance is sought through working hand

in hand with providers who are involved with the care of the individually and working with an

entire nation of community based “proven” resources to treat and refer. SMASHA notes: “the

trauma and justice approach specifically deals with those who are involved with the criminal

justice system and meet the needs of the clients to address treatment needs” (Montvilo, (2015).

To better address the social issues that plague the system, I propose to work toward and

secure a profession in one of the areas allowing me to showcase my education skills and talents

driven by my passion for reform and social issues. I plan to pursue Forensics training, a

subspecialty profession of Criminal Justice to bring forth change and reform and provide more

assistance towards reform through the education I have striven to acquire. The American

34

Psychological Association stated: “Forensic training may involve a subspecialty such as a (MLS)

Masters of Legal Studies or a Master of Criminal Justice (MSCJ). (Montvilo, 2015). I bring with

me a Masters in Criminal Justices with emphasis in Legal Studies combined with years of work

experience in both areas and a clear track record of changing the path of lives through treatment,

support, providing skills, preventative maintenance, firsthand knowledge of barriers, and creating

more safe communities.

Finally, I am certain that I can reform through employment, life skills, peer support,

mental health, legal studies, community based interactions, experience with the courts, assisting

through Supportive Employment, obtaining housing for the homeless, mentally ill, and those

release from prison. I purpose to work aggressively and use what I have learned educationally to

focus on reform to better the quality of lives for all concerning public safety and reform.

35

References

Carson, E. Ann. Prisoners in 2014. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Sept. 2015, NCJ248955, p. 16 (state) and p. 17 (federal).

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5387

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf.

James, Doris J. and Lauren E. Glaze. 2006. Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail

Inmates. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office

http://www.census.gov/

Any Mental Illness (AMI) Among Adults. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2015, from

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/any-mental-illness-ami-among-adults.

Montvilo, R. P. (2015). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA). Salem Press Encyclopedia of Health.

Severson, M. E., Veeh, C., Bruns, K., & Lee, J. (2012). Who goes back to prison; who

does not: A multiyear view of reentry program participants. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,

51(5), 295-315. doi:10.1080/10509674.2012.677944

Stanhope, V., & Henwood, B. (n.d). Activating People to Address Their Health Care Needs:

Learning from People with Lived Experience of Chronic Illnesses. Community Mental Health

Journal, 50(6), 656-663.

36