Monday, April 27, 2009
Child Support in Federal Prison
I was wondering if anyone knew about when child support is ordered when your loved one is in prison. My husband has a child from a previous marriage and a recent court date child support was ordered. My hubby was told that she will only get $25 every 3 months or quarterly but the court here has to petition the prison for it and all. Any information is great. Thank you.
Friday, April 24, 2009
I wanted everyone to check out this site and help us support Senator Webb and his bill to help our guys!
April 23rd, 2009 7:14 pm ET
People can take action to support Sen. Webb’s important bill at http://www.DrugWarDebate.com
It only takes a second and if enough people support this we can make a difference!
Kim R.
April 23rd, 2009 7:14 pm ET
People can take action to support Sen. Webb’s important bill at http://www.DrugWarDebate.com
It only takes a second and if enough people support this we can make a difference!
Kim R.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Looking for Insight
Hey everybody. How are you all doing?
Let me introduce myself. I am Leah, my husband SS on 4/16/09 to Morgantown....So far, all's well there and here in NJ....I DO have a question...Can anybody tell me the benefit of using Magic Jack for the phone calls from the guys?
Steve mentioned it too me, but I just don't understand. If I have it, how does it work on my cell phone? Thats where he calls, so that I know I can talk, and he wont waste his minutes with an answering machine. ALso, we have cable phones, so we aren't charged long distance. Does this make sense? OR are al the call from the prison the same price?
This is obviously new to me, so any help or advice would be great.
Thanks and hope everybody had a nice weekend.
Let me introduce myself. I am Leah, my husband SS on 4/16/09 to Morgantown....So far, all's well there and here in NJ....I DO have a question...Can anybody tell me the benefit of using Magic Jack for the phone calls from the guys?
Steve mentioned it too me, but I just don't understand. If I have it, how does it work on my cell phone? Thats where he calls, so that I know I can talk, and he wont waste his minutes with an answering machine. ALso, we have cable phones, so we aren't charged long distance. Does this make sense? OR are al the call from the prison the same price?
This is obviously new to me, so any help or advice would be great.
Thanks and hope everybody had a nice weekend.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Here in Morgantown
Hello everyone. It was a great visit today in Morgantown although it was HOT@ It was crowed as people keep coming and coming and coming..right up to 2pm.
I will say, everytime I go to the ladies bathroom and soap comes out of the soap dispenser, I say out loud...Thank you Sam and Kim (because we all know that behind every good man is a GREAT woman!) Hope everyone is having a great weekend..(HUGS)
I will say, everytime I go to the ladies bathroom and soap comes out of the soap dispenser, I say out loud...Thank you Sam and Kim (because we all know that behind every good man is a GREAT woman!) Hope everyone is having a great weekend..(HUGS)
Friday, April 17, 2009
Second Chance for Ex-offenders act of 2009 (expungement) has been introduced
Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)
HR 1529 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1529
To permit expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 16, 2009
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To permit expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR CERTAIN NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS.
(a) In General- Chapter 229 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subchapter C the following new subchapter:
`SUBCHAPTER D--EXPUNGEMENT
`Sec.
`3631. Expungement of certain criminal records in limited circumstances.
`3632. Requirements for expungement.
`3633. Procedure for expungement.
`3634. Effect of expungement.
`3635. Reversal of expunged records.
`3636. Unsealing of records.
`Sec. 3631. Expungement of certain criminal records in limited circumstances
`(a) In General- Any individual convicted of an nonviolent offense who fulfills the requirements of section 3632 may file a petition under this subchapter to expunge the record of such conviction.
`(b) Definition of Nonviolent Offense- In this subchapter, the term `nonviolent offense' means a misdemeanor or felony offense against the United States that does not have as an element of the offense the use of a weapon or violence and which did not actually involve violence in its commission.
`Sec. 3632. Requirements for expungement
`No individual shall be eligible for expungement under this subchapter unless, before filing a petition under this subchapter, such individual--
`(1) has never been convicted of a violent offense (including an offense under State law that would be a violent offense if it were Federal) and has never been convicted of a nonviolent offense other than the one for which expungement is sought;
`(2) has fulfilled all requirements of the sentence of the court in which conviction was obtained, including completion of any term of imprisonment or period of probation, meeting all conditions of a supervised release, and paying all fines;
`(3) has remained free from dependency on or abuse of alcohol or a controlled substance a minimum of 1 year and has been rehabilitated, to the satisfaction of the court referred to in section 3633(b), if so required by the terms of a supervised release;
`(4) has obtained a high school diploma or completed a high school equivalency program; and
`(5) has completed at least one year of community service, as determined by the court referred to in section 3633(b).
`Sec. 3633. Procedure for expungement
`(a) Petition- An individual may file a petition for expungement in the court in which the conviction was obtained. A copy of the petition shall be served by the court upon the United States Attorney for the district in which the conviction sought to be expunged was obtained. Not later than 60 days after receipt of such petition, the United States Attorney may submit written recommendations to the court and notify the petitioner of that recommendation.
`(b) Court-Ordered Expungement- The court, after consideration of evidence submitted by the petitioner in support of the petition and any evidence submitted by the Government in support of objections it may have to granting the petition, shall rule on the petition. In making that ruling the court, after determining whether the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of this subchapter, shall weigh the interests of the petitioner against the best interests of justice and public safety.
`Sec. 3634. Effect of expungement
`(a) In General- An order granting expungement under this subchapter shall restore the individual concerned, in the contemplation of the law, to the status such individual occupied before the arrest or institution of criminal proceedings for the crime that was the subject of the expungement.
`(b) No Disqualification; Statements- After an order granting expungement of any individual's criminal records under this subchapter, such individual shall not be required to divulge information pertaining to the expunged conviction and the fact that such individual has been convicted of the criminal offense concerned shall not--
`(1) operate as a disqualification of such individual to pursue or engage in any lawful activity, occupation, profession, and
`(2) held under any provision of law guilty of perjury, false answering, or making a false statement by reason of his failure to recite or acknowledge such arrest or institution of criminal proceedings, or results thereof, in response to an inquiry made of him for any purpose.
`(c) Records Expunged or Sealed- Upon order of expungement, all official law enforcement and court records, including all references to such person's arrest for the offense, the institution of criminal proceedings against him, and the results thereof, except publicly available court opinions or briefs on appeal, shall be expunged (in the case of nontangible records) or gathered together and sealed (in the case of tangible records).
`(d) Record of Disposition To Be Retained- A nonpublic record of a disposition or conviction that is the subject of an expungement order shall be retained only by the Department of Justice solely for the purpose of use by the courts in any subsequent adjudication.
`Sec. 3635. Disclosure of expunged records
`(a) Law Enforcement Purposes- The Department of Justice may maintain a nonpublic manual or computerized index of expunged records containing only the name of, and alphanumeric identifiers that relate to, the persons who are the subject of such expunged records, the word `expunged', and the name of the person, agency, office, or department that has custody of the expunged records, and shall not name the offense committed. The index shall be made available only to Federal and State law enforcement personnel who have custody of such expunged records and only for the purposes set forth in subsection (b) of this section.
`(b) Authorized Disclosure- Such records shall be made available to the person accused or to such person's designated agent and shall be made available to--
`(1) any prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or court which has responsibility for criminally investigating, prosecuting, or adjudicating such individual;
`(2) any State or local office or agency with responsibility for the issuance of licenses to possess guns where the accused has made application for such license; or
`(3) any prospective city, State, or Federal employer or agency, involved in investigating and/or prosecuting under criminal or civil statutes including employers of police or peace officers and in relation to an application for employment as an employee of a city, State, or Federal employer or agency involved in investigating or prosecuting under criminal or civil statutes including as a police officer or peace officer, and every person who is an applicant for the position of police officer, peace officer, or any other prospective city, State, or Federal employer or agency, involved in investigating or prosecuting under criminal or civil statutes shall be furnished with a copy of all records obtained under this paragraph and afforded an opportunity to make an explanation thereto.
`(c) Punishment for Improper Disclosure- Any person who knowingly disseminates information relating to an expunged conviction other than the offender shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
`Sec. 3636. Reversal of expunged records
`The records expunged under this subchapter shall be restored by operation of law as public records and may be used in all court proceedings if the individual whose conviction was expunged is subsequently convicted of any Federal or State offense.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of subchapters at the beginning of chapter 229 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following item:
3631'.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this Act shall apply to individuals convicted of an offense before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
HR 1529 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1529
To permit expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 16, 2009
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To permit expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR CERTAIN NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS.
(a) In General- Chapter 229 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subchapter C the following new subchapter:
`SUBCHAPTER D--EXPUNGEMENT
`Sec.
`3631. Expungement of certain criminal records in limited circumstances.
`3632. Requirements for expungement.
`3633. Procedure for expungement.
`3634. Effect of expungement.
`3635. Reversal of expunged records.
`3636. Unsealing of records.
`Sec. 3631. Expungement of certain criminal records in limited circumstances
`(a) In General- Any individual convicted of an nonviolent offense who fulfills the requirements of section 3632 may file a petition under this subchapter to expunge the record of such conviction.
`(b) Definition of Nonviolent Offense- In this subchapter, the term `nonviolent offense' means a misdemeanor or felony offense against the United States that does not have as an element of the offense the use of a weapon or violence and which did not actually involve violence in its commission.
`Sec. 3632. Requirements for expungement
`No individual shall be eligible for expungement under this subchapter unless, before filing a petition under this subchapter, such individual--
`(1) has never been convicted of a violent offense (including an offense under State law that would be a violent offense if it were Federal) and has never been convicted of a nonviolent offense other than the one for which expungement is sought;
`(2) has fulfilled all requirements of the sentence of the court in which conviction was obtained, including completion of any term of imprisonment or period of probation, meeting all conditions of a supervised release, and paying all fines;
`(3) has remained free from dependency on or abuse of alcohol or a controlled substance a minimum of 1 year and has been rehabilitated, to the satisfaction of the court referred to in section 3633(b), if so required by the terms of a supervised release;
`(4) has obtained a high school diploma or completed a high school equivalency program; and
`(5) has completed at least one year of community service, as determined by the court referred to in section 3633(b).
`Sec. 3633. Procedure for expungement
`(a) Petition- An individual may file a petition for expungement in the court in which the conviction was obtained. A copy of the petition shall be served by the court upon the United States Attorney for the district in which the conviction sought to be expunged was obtained. Not later than 60 days after receipt of such petition, the United States Attorney may submit written recommendations to the court and notify the petitioner of that recommendation.
`(b) Court-Ordered Expungement- The court, after consideration of evidence submitted by the petitioner in support of the petition and any evidence submitted by the Government in support of objections it may have to granting the petition, shall rule on the petition. In making that ruling the court, after determining whether the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of this subchapter, shall weigh the interests of the petitioner against the best interests of justice and public safety.
`Sec. 3634. Effect of expungement
`(a) In General- An order granting expungement under this subchapter shall restore the individual concerned, in the contemplation of the law, to the status such individual occupied before the arrest or institution of criminal proceedings for the crime that was the subject of the expungement.
`(b) No Disqualification; Statements- After an order granting expungement of any individual's criminal records under this subchapter, such individual shall not be required to divulge information pertaining to the expunged conviction and the fact that such individual has been convicted of the criminal offense concerned shall not--
`(1) operate as a disqualification of such individual to pursue or engage in any lawful activity, occupation, profession, and
`(2) held under any provision of law guilty of perjury, false answering, or making a false statement by reason of his failure to recite or acknowledge such arrest or institution of criminal proceedings, or results thereof, in response to an inquiry made of him for any purpose.
`(c) Records Expunged or Sealed- Upon order of expungement, all official law enforcement and court records, including all references to such person's arrest for the offense, the institution of criminal proceedings against him, and the results thereof, except publicly available court opinions or briefs on appeal, shall be expunged (in the case of nontangible records) or gathered together and sealed (in the case of tangible records).
`(d) Record of Disposition To Be Retained- A nonpublic record of a disposition or conviction that is the subject of an expungement order shall be retained only by the Department of Justice solely for the purpose of use by the courts in any subsequent adjudication.
`Sec. 3635. Disclosure of expunged records
`(a) Law Enforcement Purposes- The Department of Justice may maintain a nonpublic manual or computerized index of expunged records containing only the name of, and alphanumeric identifiers that relate to, the persons who are the subject of such expunged records, the word `expunged', and the name of the person, agency, office, or department that has custody of the expunged records, and shall not name the offense committed. The index shall be made available only to Federal and State law enforcement personnel who have custody of such expunged records and only for the purposes set forth in subsection (b) of this section.
`(b) Authorized Disclosure- Such records shall be made available to the person accused or to such person's designated agent and shall be made available to--
`(1) any prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or court which has responsibility for criminally investigating, prosecuting, or adjudicating such individual;
`(2) any State or local office or agency with responsibility for the issuance of licenses to possess guns where the accused has made application for such license; or
`(3) any prospective city, State, or Federal employer or agency, involved in investigating and/or prosecuting under criminal or civil statutes including employers of police or peace officers and in relation to an application for employment as an employee of a city, State, or Federal employer or agency involved in investigating or prosecuting under criminal or civil statutes including as a police officer or peace officer, and every person who is an applicant for the position of police officer, peace officer, or any other prospective city, State, or Federal employer or agency, involved in investigating or prosecuting under criminal or civil statutes shall be furnished with a copy of all records obtained under this paragraph and afforded an opportunity to make an explanation thereto.
`(c) Punishment for Improper Disclosure- Any person who knowingly disseminates information relating to an expunged conviction other than the offender shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
`Sec. 3636. Reversal of expunged records
`The records expunged under this subchapter shall be restored by operation of law as public records and may be used in all court proceedings if the individual whose conviction was expunged is subsequently convicted of any Federal or State offense.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of subchapters at the beginning of chapter 229 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following item:
3631'.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this Act shall apply to individuals convicted of an offense before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Denied
Well guys as much as I hoped for Chance to come home in June, I knew this is the answer we would get. He has been denied any extra half way house time. It always seems like you get the worse news when your already having a terrible day. Soooo ladies looks like I will be around for the bachelorette party.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
DNA
Does anyone know how long before they go to the hwh they take your DNA sample...I am getting too excited hoping they will give Chance the date in June...They took his DNA today! Just wondering if anyone has heard anything about it.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Who will hire ex-cons?
I just got a call from Jamie W. with we deserves our lives back.com. He has a contact that is having trouble find an employer willing to hire ex-cons. We will all cross this bridge at some point in this journey. We need to work on compiling a list of companies that will hire our loved ones. If anyone is willing to work on this or knows of companies that will hire please let me know.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Setup for another let down
well after nearly 6 months of waiting for Chance's hwh date...we finally got it! his counselor told him he will get between 150-180 days (5-6months hwh)...well wouldn't you know it the counselor procrastinated all this time and yesterday we found out that the counselor only put in for 90 days...and that is exactly what he got...HWH is now Sept 16th...Chance was pissed because the counselor or case manager or whoever did not put in what she was supposed to...so he took his copy of the paper with 150-180 to the warden...wish us luck on that because the warden sent him to someone over all the counselors/case managers and an email was sent to whoever in BOP to modify his hwh time...hopefully he will get more time...but if not, I guess I should just be happy we finally got a date.
Getting Married...
Greg got the word today that we are approved to get married while he is on the inside and he hasn't stopped calling me all day. :) He has already told some of the guys inside. No one will be able to be there (like who is going to witness it?) so that is a little dishearting. The next date available is June 19th at 2pm. They only perform marriages once every three months on a friday at 2pm. We haven't decided on that date yet.
I value the opinions of our group. I know that some will feel I need to wait. But I have done my homework and this is what I want. We would've gotten married before he went in...just ran out of time.
Thank you for letting me share our good news!
I value the opinions of our group. I know that some will feel I need to wait. But I have done my homework and this is what I want. We would've gotten married before he went in...just ran out of time.
Thank you for letting me share our good news!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
H.R. 61 This Act may be cited as the `Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2009'
HOW DID WE MISS THIS ONE?
(a) In General- Section 3624 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting `at the early release date provided in subsection (g), if applicable, or otherwise' after `A prisoner shall be released by the Bureau of Prisons'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(g) Early Release for Certain Nonviolent Offenders- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Bureau of Prisons, pursuant to a good time policy, shall release from confinement a prisoner who has served one half or more of his term of imprisonment (including any consecutive term or terms of imprisonment) if that prisoner--
`(1) has attained the age of 45 years;
`(2) has never been convicted of a crime of violence; and
`(3) has not engaged in any violation, involving violent conduct, of institutional disciplinary regulations.'.
That is it!!!! Maybe it is too simple to get the attention of FedCure and such groups. It doesn't have any sponsors though. Danny Davis had sponsored it but withdrew on 3/2.
H.R.61 Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an alternate release date for certain nonviolent offenders, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] (introduced 1/6/2009) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 2/9/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
(a) In General- Section 3624 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting `at the early release date provided in subsection (g), if applicable, or otherwise' after `A prisoner shall be released by the Bureau of Prisons'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(g) Early Release for Certain Nonviolent Offenders- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Bureau of Prisons, pursuant to a good time policy, shall release from confinement a prisoner who has served one half or more of his term of imprisonment (including any consecutive term or terms of imprisonment) if that prisoner--
`(1) has attained the age of 45 years;
`(2) has never been convicted of a crime of violence; and
`(3) has not engaged in any violation, involving violent conduct, of institutional disciplinary regulations.'.
That is it!!!! Maybe it is too simple to get the attention of FedCure and such groups. It doesn't have any sponsors though. Danny Davis had sponsored it but withdrew on 3/2.
H.R.61 Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an alternate release date for certain nonviolent offenders, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] (introduced 1/6/2009) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 2/9/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
This weekend
Hello everybody, Just wanted to let everyone know I will be in Morgantown Fri-Sun...Priceline is doing $50 rooms for Lakeview Resort again this weekend.
MeLaNiE
MeLaNiE
Butner Regular
Hi Leslie,
I have been visiting Butner weekly and they know me well. Please email me your phone number, if you are comfortable, and I will call you. My email is defowler@live.com
I look forward to meeting you soon!
Diane Fowler
I have been visiting Butner weekly and they know me well. Please email me your phone number, if you are comfortable, and I will call you. My email is defowler@live.com
I look forward to meeting you soon!
Diane Fowler
Monday, April 6, 2009
Hotels near Butner?
Hi Everyone,
Of those of you in the Raleigh area; who knows where to stay near Butner? Leslie who has been in the group for a few months, will be visiting her husband there. After a long road he has finally landed there. They are from Canada and she will be driving down to visit him at the end of the month. This will be their first visit in over a year.
Of those of you in the Raleigh area; who knows where to stay near Butner? Leslie who has been in the group for a few months, will be visiting her husband there. After a long road he has finally landed there. They are from Canada and she will be driving down to visit him at the end of the month. This will be their first visit in over a year.
We Must Fix Our Prisions
AWESOME!
Thanks Kim!
Send this article to your U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators
Senator Webb makes sense!!!!!
http://www.parade.com/news/2009/03/why-we-must-fix-our-prisons.html
Thanks Kim!
Send this article to your U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators
Senator Webb makes sense!!!!!
http://www.parade.com/news/2009/03/why-we-must-fix-our-prisons.html
The Message project
This is a project that is run by Carolyn LeCroy. They go into facilities and make DVD's for the inmates to send home to their children. If anyone is interested in getting this implented at your facility please contact me.
http://www.themessageproject.org/
An Update from The Messages Project
A lot has happened since recognition in 2008 by CNN and Johnson & Johnson of The Messages Project as an organization that contributes to social problem solving through direct action. This is the first of what will be regular updates directed at supporters and partners in our effort to develop more effective bonds between children and incarcerated parents. With thanks to you, the last four months have been very productive.
Goal: better understanding and problem solving in nurturing the inmate-child bond, and in breaking the intergenerational connections with crime and substance abuse.
The effects of visitation and other forms of communication between children and parents in prison are not much studied or understood. The Messages Project has joined with psychology and sociology faculty and students of the University of Virginia and the College of William and Mary in a structured program to better understand how Messages can be more effective, and used in context with other forms of communication. We think that this work can make a contribution to the field beyond our own efforts.
Goal: extending the methods and goals of The Messages Project to states and communities outside of Virginia.
We are currently responding to initiatives from the states of Missouri and Nebraska to institute Messages projects within their prison systems, and working with a federal women's prison in Texas to institute the first Messages Project within the federal system.
Goal: using Messages as one component of more effective Parenting-from-Prison programs.
Messages is just one of many tools to be used to prompt and reinforce the effectiveness of parent education within the prisons. No matter the length of sentences or geographic distance from home, incarcerated parents can be effective influences in the lives of their children.
Messages projects planned for Missouri and Nebraska will play a pro-active role in Parenting from Prison programs, while we continue to and continue to develop our role in Virginia. Missouri offers an opportunity to expand the influence of Messages outside the prison through their partnerships of community providers organized under their VISTA project. We are investigating more direct programs and services for the children and their caretakers connected directly with expanded in-prison parenting services for the incarcerated parent.
Goal: using attention to The Messages Project to bring wider attention to the problems and solutions for children of incarcerated parents.
Carolyn LeCroy will be speaking to the conventions of the Virginia State Bar Association in April and the American Bar Association in June on the effects of incarceration on children and families
Carolyn will be the keynote speaker, and conduct a workshop, on the effects of incarceration on families and the use of The Messages Project for the convention of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in August.
Carolyn's work on behalf of incarcerated parents and their children was commended by a resolution of the Virginia General Assembly in its 2009 session, and she will receive the Governor's Volunteerism and Community Service Award from Governor Tim Kaine in April.
Goal: strengthen the structural and financial strength of The Messages Project for continuing development, as above.
We are developing a manual for the project that will offer comprehensive treatment of the goals and methods of Messages as it relates to parenting from prison that will allow us to help the establishment of this work in prisons and among similar organizations nationwide, while retaining our core principles and procedures.
We have received generous grants from the Annenberg and Herb Alpert Foundations. They are being used in multiple ways:
to support the core work of creating videos for inmates and their children,
to assist in planning comprehensive Messages and Parenting from Prison projects with the states of Missouri and Nebraska,
to help us complete The Messages Project Manual,
to help with out of pocket expenses for academic study of Messages effectiveness in context with other forms of communication.
With a clearly defined model for The Messages Project plus a companion Parenting from Prison Program, we are positioning ourselves to request further grant funding that will allow us to greatly expand and partner with many more prisons and inmate parenting programs across the country. In the meantime, we still seek contributions to support out of pocket expenses for our core work of traveling to prisons and helping parents communicate with their children.
Thank you for your attention and support. There are still 1.7 million American children with parents in prison, and work to be done on their behalf while that number increases.
http://www.themessageproject.org/
An Update from The Messages Project
A lot has happened since recognition in 2008 by CNN and Johnson & Johnson of The Messages Project as an organization that contributes to social problem solving through direct action. This is the first of what will be regular updates directed at supporters and partners in our effort to develop more effective bonds between children and incarcerated parents. With thanks to you, the last four months have been very productive.
Goal: better understanding and problem solving in nurturing the inmate-child bond, and in breaking the intergenerational connections with crime and substance abuse.
The effects of visitation and other forms of communication between children and parents in prison are not much studied or understood. The Messages Project has joined with psychology and sociology faculty and students of the University of Virginia and the College of William and Mary in a structured program to better understand how Messages can be more effective, and used in context with other forms of communication. We think that this work can make a contribution to the field beyond our own efforts.
Goal: extending the methods and goals of The Messages Project to states and communities outside of Virginia.
We are currently responding to initiatives from the states of Missouri and Nebraska to institute Messages projects within their prison systems, and working with a federal women's prison in Texas to institute the first Messages Project within the federal system.
Goal: using Messages as one component of more effective Parenting-from-Prison programs.
Messages is just one of many tools to be used to prompt and reinforce the effectiveness of parent education within the prisons. No matter the length of sentences or geographic distance from home, incarcerated parents can be effective influences in the lives of their children.
Messages projects planned for Missouri and Nebraska will play a pro-active role in Parenting from Prison programs, while we continue to and continue to develop our role in Virginia. Missouri offers an opportunity to expand the influence of Messages outside the prison through their partnerships of community providers organized under their VISTA project. We are investigating more direct programs and services for the children and their caretakers connected directly with expanded in-prison parenting services for the incarcerated parent.
Goal: using attention to The Messages Project to bring wider attention to the problems and solutions for children of incarcerated parents.
Carolyn LeCroy will be speaking to the conventions of the Virginia State Bar Association in April and the American Bar Association in June on the effects of incarceration on children and families
Carolyn will be the keynote speaker, and conduct a workshop, on the effects of incarceration on families and the use of The Messages Project for the convention of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in August.
Carolyn's work on behalf of incarcerated parents and their children was commended by a resolution of the Virginia General Assembly in its 2009 session, and she will receive the Governor's Volunteerism and Community Service Award from Governor Tim Kaine in April.
Goal: strengthen the structural and financial strength of The Messages Project for continuing development, as above.
We are developing a manual for the project that will offer comprehensive treatment of the goals and methods of Messages as it relates to parenting from prison that will allow us to help the establishment of this work in prisons and among similar organizations nationwide, while retaining our core principles and procedures.
We have received generous grants from the Annenberg and Herb Alpert Foundations. They are being used in multiple ways:
to support the core work of creating videos for inmates and their children,
to assist in planning comprehensive Messages and Parenting from Prison projects with the states of Missouri and Nebraska,
to help us complete The Messages Project Manual,
to help with out of pocket expenses for academic study of Messages effectiveness in context with other forms of communication.
With a clearly defined model for The Messages Project plus a companion Parenting from Prison Program, we are positioning ourselves to request further grant funding that will allow us to greatly expand and partner with many more prisons and inmate parenting programs across the country. In the meantime, we still seek contributions to support out of pocket expenses for our core work of traveling to prisons and helping parents communicate with their children.
Thank you for your attention and support. There are still 1.7 million American children with parents in prison, and work to be done on their behalf while that number increases.
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Saga Continues
THERE is both good news and bad in the Justice Department's decision to move to dismiss all charges against former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who had been convicted on seven felony counts of ethics violations. The good news is that Attorney General Eric Holder has done the right thing, acknowledging that his department's Public Integrity Section, which handles corruption cases, committed egregious misconduct. The bad news is that the broader problem of prosecutorial excess remains unaddressed. The Stevens case did not occur in a vacuum, and it should not be treated as an isolated instance. Take, as examples, just a few recent cases. Last year, the City of New York paid $3.5 million to Shih-Wei Su, who had served nearly 13 years in prison on charges related to a shooting at a pool hall in Queens. Judge Guido Calabresi of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that "the prosecution knowingly elicited false testimony from a crucial witness." In the Duke University rape case of 2006, the reputations of several students were destroyed by a county district attorney pursuing political ambitions, and who was later disbarred and convicted of criminal contempt. In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit took the extraordinary step of ordering the release of a convicted Wisconsin state employee during oral argument; it then reversed her federal conviction, which had been based on the government's overreaching application of the "theft of honest services" corruption statute. She later said that the United States attorney, who had been appointed by President George W. Bush, offered her leniency if she would cooperate in a case against the governor, a Democrat in a tight re-election campaign. In 2005, a veteran New Jersey county prosecutor was driven from office after it was leaked to the press that he was under federal investigation for obstruction of justice. No charges were ever filed. In 2004, a federal judge threw out the convictions of two men accused of being part of a terrorist "sleeper cell" in Detroit after it was discovered that federal prosecutors had deliberately withheld potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense. What's going on here? Equally important, beyond the Stevens case, what can be done? As the examples above show, prosecutorial misconduct takes many forms, from failing to disclose critical evidence to disclosing information illegally to the press to overreaching in the exercise of the prosecutor's discretion. Underlying all of them is a frightening misconception of the role of the prosecutor. That role is not to seek the maximum penalty at every turn, nor to put together an impressive statistical tally of convictions. It is not to use the emotional pain and personal ruin involved on all sides of a criminal case to advance one's own career or personal agenda. Prosecutors do not even share the duty defense lawyers have of providing zealous representation. The prosecutor's only duty is to seek justice. Period. This duty is especially important in an age like ours, when the integrity of the criminal justice process is so frequently called into question. The presumption of innocence vanishes, these days, with the publicity surrounding an accusation. Any criminal defense lawyer has seen firsthand the humiliation and fear experienced by defendants and their families. By contrast, the reputation of the accusing prosecutor rises commensurately, creating an enormous temptation to make the press conference an essential element of the prosecution. Attorney General Holder has a lot on his plate, but I think only terrorism policy is equally important to issues surrounding the integrity of the justice system. His goal should be to restore the imperative that prosecutors seek justice, nothing more. One way to do that would be for Mr. Holder to forbid federal prosecutors to conduct press conferences to announce the filing of charges. The mischief done by statements like "The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave," as issued by the United States attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald, in announcing the filing of a criminal complaint against Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, is almost incalculable. Save the rhetoric for the conviction; a simple press release setting forth the charges and reminding the public of the presumption of innocence will serve the interests of justice. The attorney general could also seek clarity in the federal criminal statutes in order to narrow the potential for abuse of the prosecutor's discretion. The "theft of honest services" statute - created in 1988 to counter a Supreme Court decision that politicians could not be convicted of depriving their constituents of "intangible rights" like good government and honest services - is notoriously vague, and thus prone to prosecutorial overreaching. As Judge Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit wrote in the Wisconsin case, "The idea that it is a federal crime for any official in state or local government to take account of political considerations when deciding how to spend money is preposterous." The Justice Department should commit to investigating all illegal disclosures of grand jury evidence and instances of courtroom misconduct, and to punish those responsible. Above all, Mr. Holder should promote the idea that the prosecutor's job, understood properly, is an end in itself, not a stepping stone to higher office. The powers to accuse, to arrest and to prosecute are the most fearsome conferred by our society. The abuse of those powers, historically, has been the very definition of tyranny. Accordingly, the attorney general should consider supporting a rule barring prosecutors from seeking higher office for two to five years after their tenure ends. The motives underlying a decision to prosecute may rarely be beyond reproach, but they should always be above politics. John Farmer, a lawyer, was the attorney general of New Jersey from 1999 to 2002.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Why am I not Surprised?
Court overturns hundreds of cases in court scandal
By John Sullivan
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court said it would overturn the convictions of hundreds of juveniles sentenced in the midst of the Luzerne County kickback scheme.Calling it a "first step," the court wielded a little- used proceeding to throw out and expunge the case records of first-time offenders convicted of minor crimes who appeared before Luzerne County Juvenile Court Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. between 2003 and 2008.In a report to the Court, a specially appointed judge, Arthur E. Grim, said his investigation uncovered "routine deprivation of children's constitutional rights to appear before an impartial tribunal and have an opportunity to be heard."Today's ruling, which authorizes Grim to overturn the cases, affects as many as 1,200 juveniles, he said. Their cases will be reviewed individually to determine if they meet the court's conditions.Ciavarella and another former Luzerne County judge, Michael T. Conahan, have pleaded guilty earlier this year to taking $2.6 million in secret payments from the former owner of two juvenile detention centers.The judges admitted that they helped the centers secure a county contract worth millions of dollars. Ciavarella routinely sentenced children to them.Both men have agreed to spend 87 months in prison. They are free on bond while a federal judge considers the plea deal."We are very pleased that the court has issued this order expunging hundreds of cases of juveniles who suffered at the hands of Ciavarella," said Marsha Levick, legal director for the Philadelphia based Juvenile Law Center, which filed the case."We think this is just the beginning," said Levick, who added that Grim has 120 days to make all his recommendations on how to handle the remaining cases.The ruling is the first good news for juvenile defendants in a sweeping investigation into corruption at the Luzerne County Courthouse that has already netted 4 guilty pleas and prompted the County court clerk to cooperate with federal authorities.A County probation official, Sandra Brulo, 56, pleaded guilty today to altering a court document in a juvenile case. She's also agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors.The court's ruling also comes more than a month after the high court asked Berks County Judge Arthur E. Grim to review the cases of an estimated 2,500 juveniles Ciavarella sentenced in the county between 2003 and 2008.Grim moved quickly to select the most pressing cases, including those involving juveniles who were still in detention. Grim made his recommendation to the court on March 13.The Supreme Court ordered the review after the law center filed a petition alleging that Ciavarella routinely violated the rights of juveniles by allowing them to appear before him without counsel. Ciavarella failed to inform defendants of their right to an attorney.In many cases the juveniles hardly knew they were admitting to crimes, only realizing the gravity of the situation as they were being shackled and taken away to detention centers.Judge Grim concluded that "a very substantial number of juveniles who appeared without counsel before Judge Ciavarella for delinquency related proceedings did not knowingly and intelligently waive their right to counsel."The law center, which joined with Philadelphia firm Hangley Aronchick Segal and Pudlin to tackle the case, also alleged that Ciavarella denied the juveniles the right to a fair trial by failing to tell them he was getting payments from the centers where he sent some of them.A former owner of the detention centerhas not been charged and is cooperating with federal authorities, they said. The former owner, Robert Powell, said the judge shook him down for payments.The request was the second time the law center asked the Supreme Court to review cases in Luzerne County.The court denied the law center's first request, which the center made in 2008.But after prosecutors announced the charges and plea agreements, the Supreme Court took action, removing the judges from the bench and ordering the review.The Supreme Court designated Grim as a special master in the case Feb. 11, giving him six months to complete his work.
By John Sullivan
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court said it would overturn the convictions of hundreds of juveniles sentenced in the midst of the Luzerne County kickback scheme.Calling it a "first step," the court wielded a little- used proceeding to throw out and expunge the case records of first-time offenders convicted of minor crimes who appeared before Luzerne County Juvenile Court Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. between 2003 and 2008.In a report to the Court, a specially appointed judge, Arthur E. Grim, said his investigation uncovered "routine deprivation of children's constitutional rights to appear before an impartial tribunal and have an opportunity to be heard."Today's ruling, which authorizes Grim to overturn the cases, affects as many as 1,200 juveniles, he said. Their cases will be reviewed individually to determine if they meet the court's conditions.Ciavarella and another former Luzerne County judge, Michael T. Conahan, have pleaded guilty earlier this year to taking $2.6 million in secret payments from the former owner of two juvenile detention centers.The judges admitted that they helped the centers secure a county contract worth millions of dollars. Ciavarella routinely sentenced children to them.Both men have agreed to spend 87 months in prison. They are free on bond while a federal judge considers the plea deal."We are very pleased that the court has issued this order expunging hundreds of cases of juveniles who suffered at the hands of Ciavarella," said Marsha Levick, legal director for the Philadelphia based Juvenile Law Center, which filed the case."We think this is just the beginning," said Levick, who added that Grim has 120 days to make all his recommendations on how to handle the remaining cases.The ruling is the first good news for juvenile defendants in a sweeping investigation into corruption at the Luzerne County Courthouse that has already netted 4 guilty pleas and prompted the County court clerk to cooperate with federal authorities.A County probation official, Sandra Brulo, 56, pleaded guilty today to altering a court document in a juvenile case. She's also agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors.The court's ruling also comes more than a month after the high court asked Berks County Judge Arthur E. Grim to review the cases of an estimated 2,500 juveniles Ciavarella sentenced in the county between 2003 and 2008.Grim moved quickly to select the most pressing cases, including those involving juveniles who were still in detention. Grim made his recommendation to the court on March 13.The Supreme Court ordered the review after the law center filed a petition alleging that Ciavarella routinely violated the rights of juveniles by allowing them to appear before him without counsel. Ciavarella failed to inform defendants of their right to an attorney.In many cases the juveniles hardly knew they were admitting to crimes, only realizing the gravity of the situation as they were being shackled and taken away to detention centers.Judge Grim concluded that "a very substantial number of juveniles who appeared without counsel before Judge Ciavarella for delinquency related proceedings did not knowingly and intelligently waive their right to counsel."The law center, which joined with Philadelphia firm Hangley Aronchick Segal and Pudlin to tackle the case, also alleged that Ciavarella denied the juveniles the right to a fair trial by failing to tell them he was getting payments from the centers where he sent some of them.A former owner of the detention centerhas not been charged and is cooperating with federal authorities, they said. The former owner, Robert Powell, said the judge shook him down for payments.The request was the second time the law center asked the Supreme Court to review cases in Luzerne County.The court denied the law center's first request, which the center made in 2008.But after prosecutors announced the charges and plea agreements, the Supreme Court took action, removing the judges from the bench and ordering the review.The Supreme Court designated Grim as a special master in the case Feb. 11, giving him six months to complete his work.
Senator Ted Stevens
Remember Senator Ted Stevens, 84, from Alaska who was convicted several months ago for not claiming a sled dog he received as a gift? It was an utter and ridiculous waste of taxpayers' monies. Here is an excerpt from a recent article you may find very interesting:
The U.S. Justice Department will drop its case Wednesday against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who was accused of seven counts of corruption, NPR reported. Justice Department sources confirm to FOX News that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder decided to abandon the case due to prosecutorial misconduct. The judge in the case has repeatedly delayed sentencing, and at one point held prosecutors in contempt. Justice Department officials later replaced the trial team, but Holder reportedly decided Tuesday to dismiss the original indictment rather than proceed to more hearings that might embarrass the department. In addition to Stevens’ age – he’s 84 – and the fact he no longer is in the Senate, losing his seat last November to Anchorage mayor Mark Begich, sources told NPR that Holder wants to send a strong message to prosecutors that misconduct will not be tolerated Stevens was convicted last year of lying on a senate disclosure form to hide $250,000 in gifts he received from an oil company executive and friends.
The U.S. Justice Department will drop its case Wednesday against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who was accused of seven counts of corruption, NPR reported. Justice Department sources confirm to FOX News that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder decided to abandon the case due to prosecutorial misconduct. The judge in the case has repeatedly delayed sentencing, and at one point held prosecutors in contempt. Justice Department officials later replaced the trial team, but Holder reportedly decided Tuesday to dismiss the original indictment rather than proceed to more hearings that might embarrass the department. In addition to Stevens’ age – he’s 84 – and the fact he no longer is in the Senate, losing his seat last November to Anchorage mayor Mark Begich, sources told NPR that Holder wants to send a strong message to prosecutors that misconduct will not be tolerated Stevens was convicted last year of lying on a senate disclosure form to hide $250,000 in gifts he received from an oil company executive and friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)