SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome to Beat the Prosecution, presented by Northern Virginia criminal defense and DUI lawyer Jonathan Katz, where we are here to regularly present you information and ideas for beating your prosecution as best as possible. Nothing on any of our media sources, such as our podcast or website, is legal advice. John Katz only provides legal advice to current clients or for individuals who have paid for a consultation. And now for your host, John Katz.

SPEAKER_02 0:31

Hello, everybody. This is John Katz at Beat the Prosecution. I'm a criminal defense and DUI defense lawyer here in Fairfax, Northern Virginia. I wish I could say I was delighted to have the guests we have today. I am, but not about the reason. We have our return guest, Ophelia Calderon. She's a great immigration lawyer in Merrifield, Fairfax County, Virginia. She's coming to us again from Spain, just like she did last March 2025.

SPEAKER_01 1:01

I forgot about that.

SPEAKER_02 1:04

And how is it that uh we have her on again? Because the times are darker than they should be. It uh it was expected with the uh Trump administration in dealing with what we call crimigration. If you're not a United States citizen and if you're in criminal court in the United States, be careful not only what might happen today with an with a criminal conviction or something similar, that's anything but an outright dismissal or acquittal uh to your immigration status today and also with what might change tomorrow. Ophelia, not only please introduce yourself, tell us your URL and what does Calderon mean, but what are some of the most burning issues that we need to be talking about or thinking about uh since we were last here in March of 2025?

SPEAKER_01 1:54

Seems like a compound question, but I'll try. I'll try with that. You might have to remind me at some point of uh uh uh what you asked me about, but sure. Um I mean burning questions, uh or my URL, I don't have one, but oh, you mean a website? Well, so I the website's www.calderonc1.com. Um, as you know, we do uh immigration. Um I would say we're probably still primarily immigration lawyers. Um and uh we've spent a long time thinking about what it means to what what the intersection between criminal law and immigration law is, um what those consequences are, which is it makes up a good portion of our practice just thinking about that and working with our clients um on honestly to mitigate those issues. Um I it's hard for me to remember what we talked about the last time, um, but as as you said, the situation we're in a in a in a fluid situation um between ongoing significantly higher detention, significantly higher deportation rates. Um we've obviously the uh Congress, the Trump administration moving towards greater criminalization across the board, slash greater deportation, slash adding all sorts of new fun things, maybe.

SPEAKER_02 3:15

All right. It's a whole panoplay. Well, since I last we had the uh the shootings by immigration officials, the killings in Minnesota. We had uh before or after I spoke to you, uh, I think it was Judge Dugan, I'm trying to remember her first name over in Wisconsin, who was arrested and finally, uh, after I last spoke to you, convicted uh for uh allegedly, well, I guess now convicted for assisting a non-United States citizen and exiting a side door from her courtroom, even though it went into a public hallway in the courthouse where the immigration officials could easily uh find that person. Um we have this uh House uh Bill 875 that did not get passed in the Senate that would have included or maybe only had uh adverse immigration consequences for a DWI drunk driving conviction, uh for a non-U.S. citizen, even a green card holder. And I would like to start with that, with 875. What is House Bill 875, United States House of Representatives, and uh how did it not pass the Senate or get considered by the Senate and what are its risks of getting passed and becoming law anyway?

SPEAKER_01 4:32

I mean, obviously the biggest portion of if a or the I guess the biggest effect that H that HR 875 would have had would have would have been to make the a conviction for a DUI would be to render someone who has a conviction for a DUI inadmissible and or deportable from the United States. That's a pretty significant change, right? Like it's just never been a part of our of our um immigration landscape. Um and it which isn't to say that, you know, obviously having a DUI has its own problems, right? I mean, we but there are parts of the immigration statute that address habitual drunkards, for example, um, but we've never actually had something that says that a DUI is gonna make you inadmissible or deportable, which is interesting in and of itself, just because it just is, right? Um so that was what HR 875 was about. Um didn't pass, thank God, I guess. I mean, I I don't know what they were gonna do about the past, right? So that I think that's always the bigger issue is that people who already have this conviction um and who pled guilty or, you know, basically it's like a St. Cyr situation. I don't know if you're familiar with that, but that's like an older case where you're making the law now and it's now gonna apply to convictions that happened in the past. So I'm I imagine that that's probably one of the biggest reasons that it didn't happen. I don't know what's gonna happen in the future, right? It didn't pass. I don't I don't think it's gonna make it through, but that's just my opinion.

SPEAKER_02 5:55

Correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't HR 875 pass the House and somehow it just didn't get passed by the Senate? And if so, how did it not get passed by the Senate? Did it go up for a vote or just uh get dead on arrival or what?

SPEAKER_01 6:09

I don't think it's been up for a vote. That's my understanding. I think it just was dead on arrival, but I think um that has to do with what I said. I mean, I think a lot of people are, you know, understand that that would be a significant change and it would affect a you know a lot of people, right? So, I mean, that's my understanding. I think that it is there. We don't know. It might come back up again. So this is where the midterms come in, right? So it's sitting now in the Senate, so nothing's happening yet. It's still there for consideration. So, I mean, I I I guess you could call it dead on arrival because it didn't go up for vote immediately, but it's technically there for further consideration.

SPEAKER_02 6:46

Okay, so midterms. How close you watch the midterms? We know that on the one hand, uh, you know, we've got uh well Lindsey Graham, he'll he passed away, but he'll he'll get replaced by a Republican probably, and that whole snafu in Maine, but that's the more uh so-called progressive uh uh Republican senator there. Have you have you really been watching uh the races that much? Or you're just talking in generally about midterm?

SPEAKER_01 7:11

I'm talking about it in general, right? I mean, I've I mean I I'm talking about it in general just because I think that politically we seem to be as a nation, we're sort of up and down, right? I mean, there's a lot of changes across statewide. I don't know how you feel in Maryland. I'm trying to remember, do you live in Maryland or do you well anyway?

SPEAKER_02 7:28

I'm a Virginian for over 13 years.

SPEAKER_01 7:31

Yeah. So I mean, Virginia is an interesting, is interesting, right? I mean, I think looking at the Abigail Spamberger thing is less about the Democrats winning and more about the who you put up on the Republican side, right? Virginia, I always consider to be a pretty, I think it's pretty moderate, to be honest with you. I think Virginia is a relatively moderate state. There are a lot of people in Virginia that consider themselves to be fiscal conservatives, um, but social liberals, probably myself included, although I think I'm a little bit more to the left. But I mean, I think if you're gonna put up a candidate either way in Virginia, you you know, you lean towards you, you need a moderate, right? And I think that's how Abigail Spanberger got there, um, versus uh what's her name? Sears.

SPEAKER_02 8:14

I haven't been following closely enough to even say that.

SPEAKER_01 8:17

I mean, I just think that it's like a good, it's a it's a good reflection sometimes of the the nation in its entirety. Like we want something in the middle, right? We want some sort of moderate something. We definitely don't want the extreme, and I think that's where she stands. Um, but I I so I think across the board different things happen. I mean, obviously Minnesota is gonna move left always now at this point. I mean, they were they were a target in the Trump administration, and I think um that it's gonna be hard um for extreme right people on the extreme right to get a foothold now. I mean, that's my opinion, because I think that I think Minnesota's in general really sad about what happened, which is a whole nother conversation, right? About what it means to be an immigrant in the United States and and how dangerous it is for people.

SPEAKER_02 9:04

I find the following to be interesting about Univision. If I'm not mistaken, Univision is part of NBC, certainly therefore not underfunded. And uh, I just got my message right out on filter to them one or two months ago. It was when it turned out uh there was this silly uh announcement by the Department of Justice that they were investigating Steve Descano's uh Fairfax Commonwealth attorney's office uh for being so you know not helping to enforce anything against immigration for the most part, uh, which, you know, that's isn't that part of states' rights? Isn't that what Republicans are supposed to be about? So Univision contacted me. I'm not I'm not sure why, you know, my my Spanish is good enough, but my they they they pr posted verbatim uh my my comments orally about how you know this is political. This, you know, uh Tescano has the full right to uh not be ratting out uh immigrants to uh you know non-U.S. citizens to the immigration authorities, and I'm all with them on that one, and that this is uh totally Trump's the Trump administration's anti-immigration approach, and and this investigation is like a like a wet noodle. You know, so before I started a trial recently, uh a prosecutor from his office said, Hey, you know, I saw the interview, I liked it. You know, uh I can have overlapping agreements with prosecutors on that. I'll agree with any prosecutor who will not assist immigration enforcement.

SPEAKER_01 10:29

Well, I mean, they're two totally different things, right? I mean, that's your job, right? Your job, the prosecutor's job, but we're you're there to you're there to be about the criminal system, not to be about the immigration system. And in fact, you know, forcing law enforcement into into targeting immigrants is a problem, right? I mean, that's uh that's why, for example, all of the uh agreements between law enforcement or agreements between states and localities in immigration are problematic, right? I mean, the job of a police officer, the job of a prosecutor is to enforce the law, right? And it's hard to do that when you have people who are afraid to come forward. I mean, that's that's that's a significant issue, right? Why would I call the police be if my spouse is if my spouse is is uh if I'm having a domestic issue, if I think they're gonna be deported? I mean, it's one thing to want someone to be punished for the crime that they've committed, it's a whole nother thing to want to uproot an entire family and end up with deportation, right? I mean, these two things don't match up, right? Like I want someone to be punished for the crime that they've committed, and I want that crime to be or I want that punishment to be commensurate with the crime. And I don't want to also, as the victim, be punished.

SPEAKER_02 11:36

Right.

unknown 11:37

Right.

SPEAKER_01 11:37

Right. So I mean this is a significant I don't think that there's a problem with that. Right? Like I think that the Commonwealth can can enforce the criminal can envoy enforce criminal laws without being forced or without also enforcing federal immigration laws. They're two different issues.

SPEAKER_02 11:53

So, you know, some of my uh clients who are not United States citizens, they're uh their criminal cases are already known about the immigration authorities if they have a pending, for instance, green card application or asylum application. Uh but you know, let's say someone is here undocumented, uh, without any pending application, you know, I have to give them the best reassurance I can. Look, in a case in a county like Fairfax, I can't promise you anywhere that you won't be ratted out to the immigration authorities, but at least in a county like Fairfax, sometimes I can get some leverage on negotiating your case by telling the prosecutor about the immigration risks and how if we uh massage the deal uh this way or that way, especially to avoid a conviction or to uh limit the suspended jail time. Uh, we would not expect the prosecutor to notify the immigration authorities about it because if I'm not mistaken, that's uh generally the policy in uh the Fairfax prosecutor's office. There might be some exceptions, but there are a lot of uh police officers uh in Fairfax, uh, for instance, who I think who probably think that uh Steve Descone is a woolly-headed commie pinko liberal, you know, maybe not as extreme as that, who might go against it. So I tell them, I cannot promise you that your immigration status will not be ratted out. All I can say is uh we're gonna have to do a risk-benefit analysis here. And if I tell the prosecutor, I'm ready to tell you my client's immigration uh uh uh status. If you're not gonna tell the cop or anyone outside of any lawyers at your office, and then uh client, do I have your authorization? But I think it is so important for lawyers to have their clients' authorization to reveal their immigration status to uh the the prosecutors they're talking to, for instance, because there is a risk there. I what do you think about that?

SPEAKER_01 13:38

Yeah, I do. Of course there's a risk, right? I mean, as you say, there's I mean, I don't want to call them bad actors, but it feels like they're bad actors, right? It feels like it's a bad act. Again, if your job is to enforce criminal law, that's fine. Why you need to get on the immigration horse, I don't I don't understand, right? I mean, you're you know, if they come and pick them up, you're not getting your conviction, so I'm not quite sure like w, you know, what what your what your goal is. Um, I do agree, right? I mean, I think at the end of the day, it's always gonna be a risk-benefit, and I think you do need to tell your client, you do need to get consent from your client to disclose that. Uh, you know, 99% of the time they're gonna say yes anyway. Right. Right. I mean, 99% of the time. What I think is interesting that you brought when you bring that up is that, you know, in immigration proceedings itself, it's actually the burden of the government to de to demonstrate um alienage. So, you know, if a client who's in deportation proceedings um technically doesn't have to admit to the fact that they're not, they don't that we're not gonna say we're never gonna say yes, we're U.S. citizens, because that would also, that's a crime, right? And it also makes you inadmissible and deportable. But you can deny um alienage, and it is the government's burden to demonstrate that. So obviously when clients give up that information, or when we, or I guess you give up that information, um, the the Department of Homeland Security can potentially use that against us in immigration proceedings. So that's interesting.

SPEAKER_02 15:00

So in uh with jails like Fairfax, if that's still happening, where there's uh there's limited um help by the uh uh by the sheriff's department and reporting people to uh the immigration authorities who are at the jail, how is that working? Does that mean that if my client who's undocumented gets arrested for DWI and gets released three hours later, that that person is not going to be reported to ICE by a jail like Fairfax? But if the person gets uh two nights in jail after being conviction, they are going to be reported or still not reported?

SPEAKER_01 15:35

I think they are getting, well, I mean, I I can't speak to the exact I, you know, the exact details of how that's happening. But I mean, we've definitely seen increased detention uh from the immigration side. Um, it's less in Fairfax, as always, and I just up in in Northern Virginia, but uh obviously it's happening. And whether or not that's about the jail reporting it or it's about ICE who ICE has more people, you know that, right? So they have more people now. Many, many, many more people. So instead of spending funds on USCIS officers who adjudicate benefits, it appears we are now spending many, many more funds on having many, many more ICE officers, which means that they have more time to scour whatever criminal docket there is and to figure out whether or not XYZ person is here legally or isn't here legally or has some sort of immigration status. So we're definitely seeing a lot more of that.

SPEAKER_02 16:25

Okay, so let's talk about that. So even if the uh Fairfax or other Virginia or other jail in another does not report to ICE their the whole list of people who have been arrested versus convicted, uh you're like you're saying, you're saying the the authorities have this as public information, look through the court records.

SPEAKER_01 16:44

I think they can, and I think they do. I mean, certainly, you know, it's funny because people that forget about this all the time because uh, I mean, especially the media, but when they're talking about, you know, how Obama was terrible. If you if you're if you're on the right, right, and you're anti-immigration, it's always like Obama was terrible, you let everybody get away with everything. But that's actually not true. As you know, his nickname was Deporter in Chief. And a lot of that was about the fact that he really targeted criminal immigrants, right? That was his plan, right? Like, let me do this. I mean, I can't speak for Barack Obama, but I assume that what was happening there was that he's like, Well, I gotta show my, I have to show my good faith efforts to uh for immigration enforcement. And so this so I'm going to focus on criminal immigrants, and that's who I'm gonna get. And so they had entire operations where they spent all of their time looking for um immigrants who have a criminal record that you know falls into their list of things, which I'm presumably they did with public records, right? They are like looking through like, does this person, this person is a green card holder, this person now has an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. Let's go pick them up.

SPEAKER_02 17:48

So uh once in a while, an undocumented client of mine will say, Islamigra or the immigration authorities going to be in the hallways of the courthouse? Now, if they're there, I haven't been noticing it in court at all for over a at least over a year or two. I don't think I've been noticing it at all. So if it's happening to court saw Matt, uh they're they're being a little uh not obvious. What are you knowing about?

SPEAKER_01 18:11

So I definitely don't think that they're in Fairfax, right? I think that they know that they're not welcome to to some extent, right? I mean I think that's just true, right? I think they're not welcome. Um, but I have had clients arrested in the parking lot in some of the outer lying areas.

SPEAKER_02 18:27

Such as what what places?

SPEAKER_01 18:29

Like Fokier.

SPEAKER_02 18:31

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 18:32

Yeah. So Fokir, like the farther you get out there. I've I have had clients arrested in the parking lot of Fakir, which I think again, again, why are you arresting them before they attend their criminal proceeding? Right? I mean that doesn't make any sense. So at least one of my clients was arrested on his way in to go to attend his court. And so obviously he didn't attend his court, so he got a nice FTA, um, for which it it obviously is not it not his fault because he it was his intent to attend to go to court that day, and he got picked up in the parking lot. They knew he was coming.

SPEAKER_02 19:04

Okay, so what does uh what does a non-U.S. citizen do if they are detained by ICE, uh immigration and customs enforcement uh for deportation proceedings and the person still has a pending criminal case stable.

SPEAKER_01 19:20

Well, I guess they call you, John, because you know what has to happen, right? So once they move in. So this has actually gotten complicated. So two things. One is that if you get taken into custody and you have a pending criminal case, then yes, you obviously still have to call somebody. So I guess to call you and figure out what to do with that, right? If your client is still is is gonna be in immigration custody, then you do whatever you do in criminal court to, you know, to demonstrate to that that to the court so that A, they don't have an FTA, and then figure out how to what to do and how to dispose of that case, I think is gonna depend on what the likelihood is of that person receiving bond, which brings me to, since we haven't talked in a while, um, I guess would bring me to one of the biggest changes from 2025, um, which has some nice litigation story to it as well. But in um, I think it was August, I want to say, or late July, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision called um Yahuri Kortado. I don't know if you're familiar with that, but basically the Board of Immigration Appeals said that anybody who entered the United States unlawfully, we'll call it, right? Or without admission or parole, was just ineligible for bond period. This is a significant change, right? Like that has never been the case. And then it has like the language of it, which we don't have to get into the weeds about, but it was super convoluted and very common, like hard to understand. Like, what are you saying here, right? This doesn't make any sense. So, but that obviously the Board of Immigration Immigration Appeals applies to all immigration courts nationwide. So that meant that all immigration courts had to say, like, okay, well, we don't have jurisdiction to hear a bond proceeding for someone who was not admitted or paroled into the United States, or not admitted, it's really what it is, right? So we don't have jurisdiction to hear any bond proceeding for someone who wasn't who was not admitted to the United States. Obviously, that led to a flurry of habeas, right? Because so that's that's our that that that's uh that's our only route. So all of a sudden, um we all had to pick up our habeas pens and start filing habeases nonstop um across the country. Um I would say that we are now probably 80-20 on this issue. So most federal district courts um have found that the that VIA case is dumb. They didn't say that, but saying, right? Most of these habeases have been granted. Um, and so uh it's it's still terrible though. I mean, it it's a positive that the habeases are granted in most jurisdictions, um, but it it is negative, obviously, for the immigrant themselves, right? For the person themselves, because now they have to pay for us to go fet to federal court before we can even roll back and go into and then we have to go back to immigration court and get the bond. So it's a complicated story. Right. So for you, for the person for whom this happens, yes, first they have they have to call everybody, right? They have to call a criminal attorney and they have to call an immigration attorney.

SPEAKER_02 22:07

So if a criminal defense law has a client uh with a pending criminal uh uh with a trial date, a pending criminal trial date, the person is picked up by ICE, is not granted a bond with ICE or with the immigration authorities, to what extent will I ever do what well, what I call it a writ, if it's from one jail to the other federal, to what extent will I assist with that person uh attending their trial in state level court?

SPEAKER_01 22:33

Well, I don't know. The I guess it depends on where the person is detained, right? So I if the person is detained at Caroline, right, or Riverside, we're talking about the common law. So if the person is detained at Caroline or Riverside, I think you have a better chance on that writ, right? Because the technically state facilities. So if you get a writ from someplace, some w whatever whatever county in in Virginia, then uh, you know, Caroline is more likely to, because it's a state facility, more likely to comply.

SPEAKER_02 23:04

Right.

SPEAKER_01 23:04

Right? Versus Farmville, which is a privately run ICE facility, they're less likely to comply or at least make your life very difficult. We haven't actually had to do that recently, have you?

SPEAKER_02 23:18

I have a client right now who's in Caroline and uh in ICE custody and has a pending uh preliminary hearing in a state level court.

SPEAKER_01 23:26

So I feel like your writ is going to be more successful at Caroline than it is it gonna be at Farmville. Because I think Caroline still has to follow the, I mean they're still a Virginia facility, no?

SPEAKER_02 23:35

Yes. I just didn't know if they were following uh ICE uh ICE directives uh not to transfer them over, uh lest they then be uh right, right, not not have as much security at the state level jail and be able to escape. I don't know why ICE would be concerned about that, but they might.

SPEAKER_01 23:52

Well, they might or they might not. I mean, you know, they're busy. They're busy. I mean, the jail's full, obviously, they're detaining people left and right. Not everyone can afford to do a habeas, not everyone can afford to do a habeas followed by a bond proceeding. And then we have this fun, fun thing in Virginia now where even if you do get that bond proceeding, um, there's been a shuffling in the immigration court. And so at least, so there's three, I want to say three, there's three judges that do detained work at the immigration court in Anandale. Um, and so that's gonna cover anyone detained in the District of Columbia and um the Commonwealth of Virginia. Um, and it's not easy to get a bond out of the Anandale Immigration Court. It's not one in part one in because they're just not applying the correct law for sure. So even after you go and you get that habeas order that says you must conduct a bond hearing, right? Um it's it it can be very difficult to get a bond, particularly with one. One is very, very, very difficult. And when you get it, it's some kind of outrageous amount, like $25,000. And as you as you may or may not know, when it comes to paying a bond in immigration proceedings, it's different from criminal, right? So when you are detained in the criminal setting, you go to that bail bondsman guy, and then you pay whatever percentage, and then voila, you get your bond. But for immigration, it's different. I mean, obviously for bail bondsmen, they're sort of like, well, but you could be tor but deported tomorrow and I could just not get this money back. And so the the deal making portion of getting a bond is more difficult for the average immigrant.

SPEAKER_02 25:28

Right. So Ophel, you've been great in helping to advise. Of course, I'm not gonna say any of their names or identify them otherwise, been great at advising uh several of my clients. Often I'm on the three-way call for that. Uh, for instance, a client who made the silly error of uh leaving the United States when his uh DWI case was pending and his H1B, uh his H1B visa was gonna expire in a few months, and another client who had a uh a pending asylum uh case with a DWI uh trial coming up. I think you've also uh advised maybe one or two clients with uh, I don't know if we call them diplomatic visa or whatever. Can you tell the audience, you know, what kind of risks are you gonna possibly have if you have anything less than a green card, a student visa or whatever? You've got a DWI pending case, you're gonna get an email from the consulate uh at your at your uh country abroad, and what happens if your email goes to the spam box about your your your visa being revoked? And uh more I think more uh at the more dangerous level, uh what is the necessity talk to talk to your uh lawyer, and maybe an immigration lawyer and your criminal law uh before you leave the United States, if you have a pending criminal case of any type, uh if you're not a United States citizen?

SPEAKER_01 26:48

I mean, I think the answer is very simple, actually, and notwithstanding the silly mistake as you characterize that, right? I mean, the answer is very simple. If you have a pending anything, don't leave, right? If you don't have a green card and you're not a U.S. citizen, you have a pending anything, don't leave. Um, you need to wait and you need to talk about it. And I understand sometimes there are emergencies, right? But the the the short answer is don't leave. The longer answer is you then you have to consult with an immigration attorney to figure out what what if any um consequences there would be for you. So in the example that you're giving, um there you know, sometimes I feel like uh there have been a lot of policy changes. They're quick, uh quick policy changes that we don't even know about sometimes. And then sometimes there's like a reversal on the policy. But as as you know, earlier this year there was a policy um where the State Department was revoking visas. And so people were have, I mean, you're already in the United States, you already have that visa in your passport, and the visas were being revoked. So it's not that revocation of visas is new. I mean, in the Foreign Affairs Manual, there's like specific paragraphs that deal with prudential revocation in cases where they're like, oh, this person is probably now inadmissible, and so we're gonna cancel their visa so that they, you know, they they won't be able to use that again. Um, but we did see a flurry of revocations. And what was interesting about those revocations is that they did involve people who, not just people who had convictions, but people who had pending charges. And not just pending charges, but even pending charges, but back to the DUI thing, circling back to the beginning. Um, so people with pending charges for a DUI were getting their visas canceled, even though a DUI doesn't make you inadmissible to the United States and it doesn't make you deportable to the United States. And while that sounds like something that you could just call up and be like, hey, I mean, like, hey, um, by the way, I either A wasn't convicted of that DUI or B, that doesn't make it make me inadmissible or deportable, that's not really helpful to someone who who's already out of the United States and now has to wait seven months to get an appointment, maybe kind of, and then has to wait another seven or eight months for them to adjudicate that visa. So now you but you're gone, right? I mean, if your job is here, your home is here, all this stuff is here, while you're waiting for them to either work it out or never work it out, the best advice obviously is don't leave.

SPEAKER_02 29:04

Okay, now you were saying if you don't have a green card, but even if you have a green card, you might not you shouldn't leave the United States if it's uh if it's a criminal charge you have that's deportable uh makes you deportable or inadmissible, right?

SPEAKER_01 29:19

100%. 100%. So speaking to the very clear thing about that. So about the DUI. A DUI doesn't make you inadmissible if you're a green card holder at this time, right? But as we just discussed with the HR 875 thing, it could, and it could happen when you're when you're outside, right? But obviously, green card holders are in a different position because they are generally, they are so fun fact on this one, but they're generally not applying for admission to the United States. They're just returning to their home, right? Because this is their residence or the U.S. is their residence, that's where they reside. Um, but there is a part of the immigration statute that says that a green card holder is applying for admission again if they have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, right? Which is a bunch of crimes, or maybe who knows? But I mean it's a really amorphous term, crime involving moral turpitude. Um, so yes, obviously if you have a pending anything, then you need to contem you need to think about this and you should probably consult with an immigration attorney who specializes in that before you leave the United States, because there's nothing worse than coming into the airport and not being let in, right? Um if you're a green card holder, they will likely let you in, but um you will be placed, you will most likely also be placed in removal proceedings. And then also if you actually have the conviction, um you could also be detained by ICE. And that really sucks because if you are that person who is coming in and is an arriving alien, you're also not eligible for bond with the immigration judge. So we will be doing your case from jail.

SPEAKER_02 30:50

If you are not a United States citizen and if you're going to be leaving the United States while you have a pending criminal case, make sure you coordinate that with your criminal defense law and immigration law. And if you don't have both, make sure you have both before you leave the United States.

SPEAKER_01 31:04

Well, that seems clear too. I imagine that there's some kind of issue with traveling when you have a criminal charge pending, no?

SPEAKER_02 31:11

Uh for a criminal? Uh and maybe not in Virginia. If you have an if you have a recognizance with uh unsecured bond, unless the recognition says whether secured or unsecured, if the recognition doesn't say you can't leave the Commonwealth of Virginia, you can go even to uh Mars and back.

SPEAKER_01 31:27

Okay, well, don't do that if you're not a U.S. citizen. But I mean for the for everybody else. Okay, if you're a U.S. citizen, I guess you can flip around and go on to the Bahamas if you want to. But if you're not a U.S. citizen, you have to consult.

SPEAKER_02 31:41

Okay, so please, are there any exceptions to the visa holders that aren't green cards, that don't have green cards who are not going to be at risk of having their visas revoked with uh certain pending uh criminal charge like DWI, for instance, some of the diplomats' visa. I mean, I I'm I'll I'll run through the list here and some of them overlap with what I said. We have the student visas F1, uh, we've got the H1 uh B visas for professionals, got diplomats' visas, and then we got the asylum applicants. Uh, what should all of them expect are going to be the risks to their their visas or application processes? And the people who just have any pending uh immigration.

SPEAKER_01 32:18

Are we still talking about travel?

SPEAKER_02 32:20

I'm not talking about travel now.

SPEAKER_01 32:21

Now I'm talking about what I don't think there's an exception for travel. I mean, I think for travel, no matter what your visa status is, whatever your non-immigrant visa status, and let me just separate asyles and LPRs out again, right?

SPEAKER_02 32:32

So everyone but asyles and LPRs so everyone PR licensed permanent permanent resident, right?

SPEAKER_01 32:39

So let me just separate out the green card slash lawful permanent resident and the asyles. But everybody else who's on a non-immigrant visa of any kind, tourists, students, whatever's, I mean, that is an issue. It's always an issue, right? Because you are always coming back in to apply for admission. And so you could, there's always something that could potentially happen. And the revocation of visas applies to all visas, it's not one, right? So it's not only where we can only revoke H1B's, they can revoke any visa that they want. And in fact, if we look back in the beginning of the Trump administration, there was like a series of student visa revocations that was under sub like substantial litigation, right? So the revocation of visas can happen, period, right? Of non-immigrant visas. So there's no exception. If there's a non-legal exception, I guess there could be a non-legal exception for diplomats, right? Um, but it's not so much in a I wouldn't call that a legal exception. I would call that a slightly different treatment for diplomats. Um, and so I I'm not comfortable saying that they should, they should also consult, right? Just because you're a diplomat doesn't mean that you're not inadmissible because you are. You know, if they let you pass because you're the ambassador of blah, blah, blah, that's fine. But what if you're just the attache to the ambassador of blah, blah, blah? Then you still are gonna have a problem. So the but the bottom line is the rule is the rule should be if you have anything pending at all, you need to consult with somebody. And then asyles mostly don't travel as much, right?

SPEAKER_02 34:03

I've moved away from travel, actually.

SPEAKER_01 34:05

Oh, okay.

SPEAKER_02 34:06

Now we're setting up. What I want people to know about is if you're in the United States and are not a United States citizen, either have a visa or undocumented, what are your risks when uh your certain criminal charges, including even DWI, are pending, uh, to your immigration status here? How are you going to be notified? And if you receive a uh uh an email from your consulate abroad that your visa is revoked, what does that really mean? Does that mean you can still stay in the United States and get the benefits of that visa?

SPEAKER_01 34:34

Yeah, so that's a really good question that is kind of finite and by itself, right? So the question of if your visa is revoked, but you are currently in that status, that only applies to your visa. So to be clear, a visa is like a permission slip, actually. A visa is like a permission slip that allows you to enter the United States. So a visa can be valid for whatever number of six months, eight months, ten years, whatever it is. And what that means is that you can use the visa to enter the United States. It doesn't mean that the time that you're in the United States is you're that you're legal for that length of time. It just means that that's permission to come in, okay? So once you're here and you're in whatever XYZ status, you're not using that visa anymore, right? Like the visa was just permission to come in. Now you're here in X in whatever status you're in. Let's say you're a student, right? So now you're here as an F1. If your visa gets canceled, that doesn't mean that your status as a student is canceled. It could mean that, but it doesn't. That's not what it absolutely means. Because the state the State Department only deals with visas, right? It doesn't deal with status once in the United States. So if that happens and you get an email, then you need to, again, you need to consult an immigration attorney to decide what your next steps are gonna be. And it could be that your next steps are never to leave again until you actually finish whatever immigration process you're in. Or it could be like, hey, you know, if you go back out, understand that we're gonna have to do this battle out at the at the US Embassy, but you must consult.

SPEAKER_02 36:02

Okay, from a practical standpoint, if these things are being, if these notes are being sent by email, for those folks who rarely check their email, if you're not a United States citizen or live in the United States, make sure you have an email address, one that uh I guess that your consulate abroad has, check your email daily, check your spam box. I mean, isn't that right?

SPEAKER_01 36:22

Yeah, I mean, and also to be honest with you, I have a pretty good example of this. It's not a criminal thing, but I do have a client whose visa was um revoked. And it's kind of interesting because that person's visa was revoked according to the email that they received. They received the email, I want to say, maybe in February, I want to say. Um, and it said that their visa had been revoked as of December. But my client had traveled on the visa in January. And so I mean, yeah, you have to pay attention to those to your emails. Who knows what that really means? Because my client traveled into the United States in January without a problem. But then obviously on the next round, we're like, I mean, I was like, you know, if you leave, then we're done. Like that visa's gone. We got to do it again.

SPEAKER_02 37:10

But yeah. What kind what kind of criminal convictions can still uh not be a big harm or any harm to uh one's green card status versus if you know they're in the United States with another type of visa? For instance, DWI conviction, my understanding from you over the years has been you have a green card, you get one DWI conviction, no other convictions. The worst thing that happens, you might have you probably have to wait uh another uh start waiting five years again to apply for citizenship. But you've told me before that anyone else can have a bigger risk, even an F1 student visa, older two.

SPEAKER_01 37:42

Well, that's because they can be exactly so. I mean, visas are discretionary and for whatever reason, they can, you know, they can end up they can prevent you from getting it. They can decide that they're not going to give it to you. I mean, to be honest with you, even people who are applying for immigrant visas, this is this ha this is pretty common down south, I mean, south of the border, and actually also even in in at some of the other European um embassies where if you have more than one DUI, um they can make findings about whether or not they can question whether or not you're a habitual drunkard, which can then also lead to denial of visas at the US embassy. So one DUI, okay, fine. Multiple, we start having some problems. Other visas, other problems. Hmm. I'm trying to think about other criminal convictions that don't have to be a lot of people. Well, the H1B thing is the same, right? So all of a sudden, I think DUIs are, I mean, I'm surprised that it's still sitting in set in the Senate, to be honest. I mean, I'm not I I'm a little bit surprised because I felt like there was gonna be a push for that because you see it happening so much at the out on the outside that we're sort of cracking down on DUIs. That that's the primary one that technically doesn't prevent you from being here, but we're seeing a lot of. Obviously, any of the crimes that sound like from like CIMTs, crimes involving moral turpitude, obviously it's apps, that's a problem. Um, certain types of assault, that's a problem. Um, embezzlement, that's a problem. Crimes of violence, that's a problem. I mean, most crimes are a problem, and obviously all drug crimes.

SPEAKER_02 39:17

Right. So if an F1 student visa holder or H1B uh visa holder gets a DWI conviction, what's the worst that they should expect from practical uh standpoint uh with their uh immigration status?

SPEAKER_01 39:31

Well, the worst is the visa revocation.

SPEAKER_02 39:34

Okay, and if their visa gets revoked, does that just mean that they have to go abroad to their uh the the consul in their home country to apply to renew, or how does that work?

SPEAKER_01 39:43

Yeah, it means that so how it works is that while you may still be in the status here in the United States, it means that you're not free to travel, right? Because you no longer have the permission slip to come back into the US because that visa was canceled. Um so it means that you have to go out if you want to be able to travel, which is dangerous because if they decide they don't want to issue that visa, then you're stuck outside.

SPEAKER_02 40:02

And then when it comes time to renew your F1 visa, your H1B visa, uh under what circumstances with the DWI conviction, for instance, are you gonna then have to uh go to your consulate, the U.S.

SPEAKER_01 40:14

consulate abroad to go ahead and reapply versus the only reason why you would have to do that is if you don't do the renewal before you it expires, because the truth is, um uh interestingly, the H1B, there's no question, there's no fingerprinting, and there's no question about crime. And that's also true on the 539, which is the change or extension of status that applies to the student. Also, there's no question about that. So that's kind of interesting.

SPEAKER_02 40:37

Let's talk about uh Virginia Code section 19.2, hyphen 298.02. The uh general continuance? The deferred uh the right, the the the the deferred case uh statute. To what extent is it and is it not a prize as it relates to immigration? Because of course uh that calls for a play, but it might be a not guilty or uh but if the prosecutor might not agree to that, or the judge could be a no contest or guilt or conditional guilty play. Uh and also sometimes it's not for an ultimate dismissal, it's just to amend the charge.

SPEAKER_01 41:11

So 298.2, I mean, it's it's great, right? If it's done right, it's it's great, right? So if if you get to plead not guilty and then you end up with a dismissal, it's great because this is not gonna be a conviction for immigration purposes. To be clear, if you enter a plea of guilt and or fact sufficient andor null woe, um, and it's gonna be a conviction for immigration purposes. So that's just the bright, it's a bright line rule, right? You must and you must plead not guilty for that to be a non-conviction for immigration purposes.

SPEAKER_02 41:43

And let's talk about uh Crespo versus United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit case, which a lot of uh prosecutors understand uh what it is. Uh I guess that goes right to what you're saying. It is that, right? Plead not guilty. But not only not plead not guilty, but don't it admit that the facts are sufficient to prove guilt, right? Remains.

SPEAKER_01 42:06

It has to be not guilty. It has to be not guilty.

SPEAKER_02 42:09

Not guilty, and I am remaining silent about the prosecutor's proffer of the evidence.

SPEAKER_01 42:14

Right. So also because in Crespo, I mean, 298.2 feels like the codification of Crespo, right? I mean, that's what that feels like to me. Um I think the big the big deal about the fact-sufficient piece in Crespo is that it was a bench trial, not a jury trial, also, right? So um that that's part of the the rationale. But uh in both of those, it's it is a bright line rule. You must plead not guilty for whatever it, you know, when you go to dismissal, you must plead not guilty, and then it will not be a conviction for immigration purposes. Any other type of plea, any guilt, any no-lo, any fact sufficient is going to result in the finding that it is a conviction for immigration purposes. So not guilty is the answer. And I say that because I have one right now, poor thing. And they did a no lo and I'm like, why? Why indeed? Why? They weren't listening to your podcast, apparently, where I could just repeatedly say, not guilty, and then and I mean I guess maybe too, because we live in the bubble that is up here inova. Maybe that's why people don't like Mr. Discount, so maybe that's exactly what the complaint is, is that that you know, I think there is generally an an agreement that, yeah, okay, fine, not guilty. And for the Commonwealth, the result is the same, right?

SPEAKER_02 43:33

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 43:33

I mean, the person does all of the things, goes through all of the hoops, and you know, pays their price to society for whatever crime they paid, and now it's also not going to be deportable.

SPEAKER_02 43:44

Right. Now let's talk about Virginia Code section 18.2, hyphen fifty seven point three. I'll tell you what it is. That is the suspended imposition of sentence for assault where if there's uh domestic, you know, it's crazy. In Virginia, they have the legal bribe statute, Section 19.2, where if it's not a family member for any uh misdemeanor where there's uh an alleged civilian victim, you can pay them off uh to ask the judge to uh dismiss the case. Totally legal as long as it's done uh out in the light of day, but it doesn't apply for family members with assault. So if a person gets convicted of assault with a family member, they can ask for the case by waiving an appeal to go ahead and dismiss the case ultimately. And what you told me was uh if you're gonna do that, make sure that there is no conditional guilty plea, there is no uh conditional no contest plea, uh just plead not guilty and have the trial. And I guess when you say have the trial, once again, you can have you you can have a trial where it's just the prosecutor reading uh reading their allegations of evidence, right? And the prosecutor just read the read the allegation of evidence, but they only do it that way, right? Without witnesses where the defendant stands silent, right?

SPEAKER_01 45:01

This is the same. I mean, the 57.3 or the 57.3, yeah. The 57.3 is the same exact thing as we just talked about, right? It is the Crespo, right? It is also the same as the 250, right? I mean, you go in, you I mean Crespo is 250 250, 251.

SPEAKER_02 45:18

Uh Crespo dealt with uh 18.2-251 of the law of in and uh in uh uh Virginia, which deals with being able to get your your first-time uh drug possession um uh charge dismissed ultimately.

SPEAKER_01 45:32

But it is but mechanically it's the same, right? Like you go in, you do the stuff, you plead, you plead not guilty. I mean, you can plead the other things, obviously, and then the judge can the prosecutor, as you say, can read all the things out loud to the judge. You have a bench trial, and then the judge can find facts sufficient to find guilt, and then you go about your business, and then a year later, two years later, whatever it is, then they dismiss it because you've done you've done all the things that you were supposed to do. It's exactly the same. So if you plead anything but not guilty, it's gonna be a conviction number one. So let's start with that. Number one, if you plead anything but not guilty, it's gonna be a conviction for um for immigration purposes, period.

SPEAKER_02 46:10

Let's talk to the criminal defense lawyers who are in over their head and don't realize that about dealing with immigration law, which is when in doubt, check with Ophelia or another immigration lawyer, or just make sure you you you you know where you're going. Do not uh have some sort of idea that, oh, gee, as long as the uh sentence is less than 180 days, I'm fine or whatever. You that you uh you are cruising for a bruisin if you do that, right?

SPEAKER_01 46:36

Yeah, that's right. I mean, I'm not the only game in town, right? There's plenty of very good um criminal immigration or immigration attorneys that deal with these issues a lot. And so, I mean, people should make friends, right? I mean, that that should be, you know, that that's a that's standard. And obviously it's to your client. I mean your your client needs to know, the client needs to know that they need this advice. And so the client is, even if you don't have a good friend, John, you do, but other people don't. If you have, if you're not, you know, super social at the bar events or whatever. I mean, your client needs to consult with an immigration attorney on this issue so that your client can make a knowing and voluntary plea or whatever decision about what to do in their criminal proceedings. So, yeah, the answer is yes.

SPEAKER_02 47:18

And you've written some great opinion letters that have helped me negotiate better outcomes for my uh non-U.S. citizen clients than uh otherwise. And some of my clients say when I tell them about that option to go to someone like you, they'll say, Well, I already have an immigration lawyer, and my immigration lawyer told me A, B, and C. And I say, Well, that sounds totally whacked out. So if you're willing to pay uh Ophelia's fee, I think it's worth talking to her because cremigration is uh this is a very narrow niche uh that a lot of immigration lawyers don't deal with. You deal with a lot of deportation issues, for instance. And am I not correct? I mean, there are a lot of immigration lawyers out there who really don't understand cremigration. They're dealing with uh business visas, for instance.

SPEAKER_01 48:01

Yeah, I mean, it doesn't make them any, I mean, it's just what what you do, right? I mean, so what you spent a lot of time doing or what you did spend a lot of time doing. I mean, obviously when someone asks me some super complicated question about their L1A multinational transfer, I'm like, okay, I I mean, I I mean, if the basic one, that's fine. Like, I I I I I know where we're going here. But, you know, if it gets complicated, I'm like, you know what, you should really call XYZ person because this sounds really complicated and I don't do business plans, right? But um yeah, I mean, a lot of immigration attorneys, it's it's hard. I mean, it's a big, pretty big field, right? The affirmative piece of it, the defensive piece of it, um, the criminal immigration piece of it, because you also have to analyze statutes, right? We have to look at the criminal statute, make these determinations. So I I mean, you I would be happy to, I'm always happy to refer a client to another immigration attorney that has an expertise in something I don't have. I mean, none of us are perfect, right?

SPEAKER_02 49:00

Yes. Um and to let everyone know, I with when you do an opinion letter, usually I ask for my holy trio. The the first letter. You do, you do, you do.

SPEAKER_01 49:10

Like an explanation.

SPEAKER_02 49:13

This defendant should not uh plead guilty or no contest to such and such a uh uh an amended crime, for instance, because and the second one is uh here here's uh here's a little more why, or if if they do uh if if they do plead guilty uh to something or no contest, it should be ideally to No, that's your third letter.

SPEAKER_01 49:36

No, John.

SPEAKER_02 49:37

I know what you're third letter.

SPEAKER_01 49:38

I tell your clients no, the first letter is always this is why this is bad, make it go away, right? The first letter is always like, hey, I understand that my client is being charged with 18.2 dash blah blah blah, and this needs to go away because this is bad, and here's why it's bad, and it's just bad. So you should just dismiss it. The second letter is if you if you if you if the Commonwealth is not amenable to that and they don't want to dismiss it, here's some alternative pleas that would be better.

SPEAKER_02 50:03

And then finally, or agreements like a 298.02.

SPEAKER_01 50:08

Yeah, and then finally there's another letter that's like, well, that's usually in the alternatives, right? And then then another one that's like, okay, so if you really, really, really can't get them to do anything, then at a minimum, like these are the reasons why uh suspend, you know, suspended deposition of sentence is a problem. So please let's let's just stay with what we need to do. And then also please don't go to jail because obviously everyone knows like once you go into the jail, it's really hard to get out of the jail. Right, right, because immigration comes and picks you up.

SPEAKER_02 50:36

And we have come to the end. So what I'm gonna do before we close, I'm gonna do the Padilla warning. I think that was the Supreme Court case, and have you uh Cynthia Wants. So isn't it the Padilla case, P-A-D-I-L-L-A from the United States Supreme Court, that actually says a criminal defense lawyer has an obligation to be aware of immigration consequences of uh of a conviction and sentence, right?

SPEAKER_01 51:00

It is that case, yep.

SPEAKER_02 51:02

And so go ahead. That puts all of you criminal defense lawyers on notice. You can't just assume that you know what you're not, what you don't know or what that you're not sure you know. Check with Ophelia or another uh reliable uh immigrant crimigration law or source. And for you criminal defendants out there, do not assume that your criminal defense lawyer understands sufficiently the immigration consequences. Take the reins yourself to check with an immigration lawyer. If you cannot afford that, there are some resources online, for instance, such as what what's the website that uh that that talks about a lot of this, um the these uh consequence risks, Ophelia?

SPEAKER_01 51:43

Uh it's Amica now. They used to be called Care Coalition, but the Amik, I think they're now called Amika A-M-I-C-A, Amica Center. They have actually a live ongoing um criminal immigration chart where you can look at most of them. Maybe not 100% of the Virginia statutes are in there, but most of them are there. I just want to follow up with one thing because you talked about the Padilla thing. Um, you know, post-conviction relief, which we could do a whole nother podcast on, actually, right? Um actually you might want to invite Scott, but um post because we we are the owners of those two cases, of the two post-conviction relief cases in Virginia. And the only reason why I I want to just re remind people that post-conviction relief is really difficult in the Commonwealth of Virginia. There is only one vehicle and it is habeas. Um, so all of these other writs, the quorums and the quorum vobus and the auto decorellas, those are out, they're done, bye-bye. Right. And so it's really important what John's saying is really important because you have to get it right now. You have to get it right in the beginning, because uh it's almost impossible to go back in time. Even if you've got bad, even if you uh you're talking about Padilla, even if you got ineffective ineffective assistance of counsel, it's very difficult to go backward in time, especially in the Commonwealth. So yeah.

SPEAKER_02 53:06

The name of the show is Beat the Prosecution. I probably asked you last time for ideas, and I don't think you said much more than uh uh preparation of what you're doing, but here's what I do want insights on. Uh, you are not exactly uh any kind of moderate by any stretch of the imagination. You are outspoken, but you do it in such a uh a way that even your opponents might be willing to listen because you just have such a nice presence and tone about yourself. So, with that or anything else, what approaches you do you do to winning? Not necessarily whether it's the prosecution and immigration court or whatever else, because you do win a lot. And what is your secret to do it beyond just preparation, preparation focus? Is there something uh uh is there something beyond that? It's a certain je ne sais quoi. Of course, if it's je ne sais quoi, that can be hard to learn.

SPEAKER_01 53:56

I mean, I first of all, thank you for that compliment. I'm not really sure that it applies to me anymore. I think it sure certainly applied to me previously, I think a combination of things like A in my prime, um, B, I think in um in a different time, right? I mean, I think my what I have always told younger attorneys is that it is important to be reasonable, and I think I try to be reasonable, as you say, right? Like even though I I am wouldn't call myself a moderate, I do understand that people need to feel like they're having a reasonable conversation. And so going to the, in my case, not the Commonwealth, but to the chief counsel in the past and saying, like, hey, or even to USCIS, to be honest, on an affirmative uh, even talking to the government affirmatively, it is like, listen, this is the outcome. This is what the outcome can be, this is what the outcome should be, and this is, you know, this is a waste of our time, is usually what I say, right? Like, this is a waste of your time, my time. Like at the end of the day, this is the most reasonable outcome, and this is the outcome that we should be going for, and the one that fits the crime, let's say, or fits the situation. Um, in the past, that has always worked for me. Um I feel like this is kind of a dark time for immigration in particular, where reasonableness doesn't seem to apply. Um, or even sometimes reading the law. I mean, as I said to you about that one particular judge in Anadale that doesn't know apparently what the bond standard is or has made up new ones. Um Yeah, I mean, I think that's what it is. I I do try to be reasonable, and I do think it's important to be reasonable, and um I hope that we return to a time where we're back to that. And part of that's about being lawyers, right? I mean, as you say, right? Like I don't I assume you don't hate every prosecutor you come across.

SPEAKER_02 55:44

No, they're humans.

SPEAKER_01 55:47

Exactly, right? So, I mean, and maybe that's the answer. Maybe you're giving me the answer, right? Is that I recognize that they're human beings and I'm a human being. And so, and also I do remind people, I do remind the court and DHS that my client is also a human being, notwithstanding their status. And so that is particularly important to me, and maybe not in such a I I I in a more reasonable way, even if I'm thinking it in my mind. Sometimes I'm like but I try to be reasonable.

SPEAKER_02 56:22

Thank you, Ophelia. Ophelia Calderon, thanks for coming back a second time to beat the prosecution. Your URL again is Calderon Segwin.com. Yep.com. She did not tell you what her last name means in English, I don't think. It means cauldron. She is a ball of persuasive.

SPEAKER_01 56:44

I don't think that's what it means. I think it's just a Calderon, it's just a Spanish name, I imagine. For my fifth generation Mexican-American self. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 56:55

Nonetheless, that's where you can find her in Merrifield, Virginia. And even while she's there in Spain for whatever part of the summer, you can still reach her through her office. Uh, it is rare for me to call and not for one of her assistants to answer. This is John Katza, Beat the Prosecution. I am a criminal defense and DUI defense lawyer in Fairfax, Northern Virginia. There is no other way than beating the prosecution. Thank you, Ophelia. Please stand by.

SPEAKER_00 57:22

Thanks, John.

SPEAKER_02 57:24

Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 57:25

Thank you for listening to this week's episode from Beat the Prosecution. This is a regular podcast giving people a leg up against police investigations and prosecutions. Nothing discussed on our media sources, such as our podcast or website, is legal advice. John Katz only provides legal advice to current clients or to individuals who have paid for a consultation. We welcome you contacting us via email at info at beatheprosecution.com by calling our office at seven zero three three eight three one one zero zero or texting us at five seven one four zero six seven two six eight.