csfelon

I have worked as a contractor before. I do enjoy the freedom and an "easy" fallback, so I'm far from going hungry. I would probably make more money as an independent consultant than I would within one of these institutions.

That being said, institutions have a certain degree of "notoriety" that perhaps appeals to me for whatever selfish reason. I just wanted to have this conversation before I went further down that road only to discover a dead end.

I do regularly consult with friends whom are law enforcement lawyers (DAs) and personal my personal representatives.

And I don't have any illusions about the concerns a perspective employer might have about the "worst case", so better not to take the risk.

I'm not at all at odds with reality, the frustration emanates mostly for me from a personal sense of vanity, and the situations where I've been declined and not offered an explanation if it was a technical deficiency or personal preference against a perceived "risk"

emailed.

I continue to follow and occasionally contact the lawyers I had represent me. I do feel I had adequate representation. Again there were plenty of opportunities for me to "refuse" to "take an offer". All of my legal rights were respected. That being said, DAs have minimum mandatory sentencing as a "hammer" to incentivize a plea bargin - and keep most cases from completing the full legal recourse.

The trade off was my lawyers could work as hard as they could to find legal loopholes, to attempt to get a judge or jury to convict on a lesser charge, however, simple possession isn't easy to create a reasonable doubt, and the jury and judge would not have any sentencing discretion so much so as I understand the way the law is written.

I take a "less is more approach" if someone asks: Were you depressed? I say: "Absolutely, I had just experienced a parents suicide" and I've done a lot of work on learning adult coping skills so that I won't repeat that sort of thing. Again this is all if they ask...

It's a weird cross section because once the door is open, someone can ask pretty much any question they may have been legally prohibited from asking in an interview because I disclosed it - I often feel it changes the dynamic of an interview in a very serious way.

I usually try to use it is an op. to ingratiate that person to my ability to cope with stress and perform under pressure.

jsmthrowaway - I'd be very interested in corresponding with you on a personal basis because of your experience - given I can't verify your identity from this - post your source address here if you'd like, and I'll get back to you. Otherwise thanks a million for taking the time.

Bitmessage: BM-NBeSoXNvHgqXKXVNykt51LayfXEJz1Yz

Yes, it was my understanding that a conviction of more than 112 grams (4 oz) of a schedule 1 controlled substance with intent to distribute comes with a mandatory sentencing requirement. This was roughly 8 years ago, so I'd have to check with my lawyers. However, it was my understanding as well that the DAs office had made me what they considered to be a "reasonable offer" and that I should not attempt to "push back harder" at a risk of having the offer rescinded or declined - and risk a prison sentence. The DAs I have spoken too since than are typically dumbfounded by the severity of my sentence given my lack of criminal history. So I guess I was just unlucky.

Yes, the FCRA rules interest me. Though they don't seem to be universally applied - and god knows if it would be at all enforceable without a great deal of litigation that is ultimately not worth-while to undertake.

I would be interested in learning more about these laws. Do you have any particular documentation?

Yes, I have considered this. Again this is a little known legal avenue that is highly politically motivated- and even less well understood than the laws that are on the books around expungement / sealing in my state.

The only indication I have found any of these avenues is a single line statement on the governors website stating that I should "contact the governors office" if I have had at least 10 years since the date the conviction. Though I don't know if this is referring to the day I was arrested or the time of final disposition of court, or sentencing (either imposed or dismissed...due to my early dismissal)

As such I have tried to volunteer my time for legislators whom have advocated bills that flesh out these laws in hopes that they can point me in the right direction in the future.

Yes, this is the sort of information I was interested in.

I have a big interest in finance (always want you cant have right?) and so learning more about the specific "rules" even if they're not laws is a window into what doors may be open or closed.

Yes, I agree. I think the version I gave was a bit more "theatrical" because I was writing it out for a non-employer.

And no I don't use illegal drugs - and am not a heavy drinker. I have coped with depression and anxiety with the help of psychotherapy and anti-depression drugs. Which have worked very well, and helped me lead a balanced and healthy life.

Yes, salesmanship has helped me a great deal. I always lead this conversation with the volunteer work I have done, and the testimony I have offered before law makers, which usually catches people as off guard as first learning about my background given my qualifications.

I also try to take the attitude, that given the current hiring environment for engineers, it's not hard for me to "go somewhere else" if I need work, and that they should be happy to have another "warm body coding" rather than worrying about some legal obligation as a business owner that they've never had to deal with before and don't understand.

I've read about this. Unfortunately, it's just a "movement" at this point. I have volunteered at some organizations that work in this space within my state.

However, the primary focus is for a larger contingent of convicts whom are returning to society after being incarcerated.

I was never incarcerated, I am not a minority, and come from a middle-class socioeconomic background, and it's extremely difficult to argue discrimination in hiring for a job that very few people are technically capable of performing.

Unlike service work for example, being able bodied, not-addicted to drugs, etc. are not the only qualifications, and any employer can easily point to a lack of an abstract qualification as a perfectly legal and acceptable reason for rejection.

Long story short, I'm not also of a particular persuasion (politically and personally) that I should be afforded any special treatment. SO I thread a particularly thin line here.

Agreed. And the reason I chose to bring this up today was, I was contacted by a recruiter at a company that is very small and in a space that I was very interested in. However, after a rather positive reception, I was called back by their recruiter and told that they didn't feel that I could be a "viable" candidate because of my background. There was no explanation.

I contacted the company's CEO directly for an explanation, going over the 3rd party recruiter. I have not heard back from him, though I don't expect to. I know he doesn't "owe" me an explanation. However, all I can do is work harder to better my skills and make myself an invaluable asset.

And yes - it's something of a "selfish" motivation, vanity as well. The same way I proved that I was capable of not only graduating from school after being expelled but getting a technical degree, and being a functional citizen despite of coming from a background that predisposed me to this (physical and mentally abusive childhood household, single parent home, suicide, etc.) It's easy to hold yourself to a "different standard" than the money.

Also sometimes I feel like "start-ups" have a tendency to clamor for engineers whom have a Google or a Facebook on their resume as they might not know about hiring, and assume these companies have 'vetted' this person for skills - it makes you stand out.