The Criminon Blog, By Robert Paisola and Criminon

Stand By Me Playing For Change Song Around the World PAISOLA

2010-01-05T20:51:00.001-08:00

Do you ever TAKE A STAND IN LIFE? Do you ever go "Against the Grain"?? Do you know what you want but seem to have a difficult time getting to the goal? Then watch this Video and always know that This is an amazing story of how people can come together in times of need. No matter where you come from, where you have been... or where you are at... there is always someone to STAND BY YOU Robert Paisola reports live.

The Robert Lambert Idaho Case, Justice Denied- Update- Governor Otter is a Man of Integrity!, Robert Paisola Reports

2009-08-06T12:22:00.000-07:00

To our friends around the world,

Thousands of people have been following our coverage of the Robert Lambert Workers Compensation Case in Idaho.

As you know, Mr. Lambert was filmed for 12 hours on a studio set as he explained in detail the problems and constant suffering that he was forced to endure at the hands of his attorneys and the officials in the State of Idaho. In case you did not see the video, here it is again.

Since this video was aired on international television, Mr. Lambert has been interviewed by many news agancies across the nation. His story is nothing more than a repeat of the John Grisham Movie "The Rainmaker" and now the world knows.

As a result of our coverage of this issue, Mr. Lambert just received a call stating that the Idaho Department of Insurance Workers Compensation Divison has NOW GRANTED FORMAL APPROVAL FOR Mr. Lambert to receive the SURGERY that he needed. The surgery is scheduled for next week and we will be on the scene in Idaho, to Document this event.

"I can not believe how fast things changed when you got involved Robert Paisola" said Lambert. "I have received calls from All over the country, and I will now be able to get all of the back benefits that I should have received" he continued, " I can not even begin to tell you how this feels, you are an incredible person, and now I understand why the world knows what you do. "Mr. Paisola, you have changed my life"

We will bring you updates from the Director of the Idaho State Department of Insurance, The Doctors Involved, the Doctors at the Mayo Clinic who have reviewed the data, the comments from the Attorneys, and Comments from the Governor of the State of Idaho, Butch CL Otter, and his administration team for making this happen.

We are now hopeful that once the surgery is complete, that the State of Idaho will issue a special order to pay Mr. Robert Lambert all of his back benefits that he deserves, along with the honorable amount for all of the suffering that he has gone through because of this ordeal.

Mr. Lambert, We are Honored to work in partnership with you, and this decision has historical implications for The State of Idaho, as Idaho Governor Butch Otter is truly a man of his word.

To your Success, Mr. Lambert

Robert Paisola
CEO
The Robert Paisola Foundation

An Open Letter from Scott M. Kareff, Attorney for Schulte Roth and Zabel LLP, Thank You!, Robert Paisola Reports

2009-08-04T00:19:00.000-07:00

To our Worldwide Viewers, Readers and Listeners across the Globe:

As many of you know, we receive hundreds of requests from Attorneys, Individuals, and Families of the Wrongfully Accused around the world.

We take each request very seriously, no matter how small the situation seems at the time. We truly understand the pain and suffering that you are going through because of your personal situation. We do all that we can to make sure that every single piece of mail, email and request for information is responded to by one of our dedicated volunteers and staff members.

We also know that many of you believe that there are DNA specific issues that you wish to have reviewed, because you feel that the technology that is now available might be able to clear your loved one or client.

Because of this question, we feel that it is essential to respond openly to a very nice letter that we received from Scott M. Kareff, an Attorney based in New York City about our foundation. Wow! we are making a difference in the world! Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!

We openly commend Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld who created the INNOCENCE PROJECT almost 15 years ago, out of a need for detailed analysis of cases of individuals who could and should be cleared because of technology that is now available that was not readily available 15 years ago.

This commitment by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld created a tidal wave of support, stemming from a small legal clinic affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardoza School of Law at Yeshiva University, that was dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals THROUGH DNA TESTING and reforming of the criminal justice system to prevent further injustice.

For over 15 years Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld have been able to raise public awareness of the serious problems in the Criminal Justice System. The continue, through The Innocence Project, to educate the public via classes, seminars, conferences, clinics, and workshops in the field of Criminal Justice.

Their success is amazing and they even decided to create an "Innocence Network" that includes The Alaska Innocence Project, The Arizona Justice Project, The Northern Arizona Justice Project, The Innocence Project Arkansas, the Midwestern Innocence Project, The California and Hawaii Innocence Project, The Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University, The Colorado Innocence Project, The Connecticut Innocence Project, The New England Innocence Project, The Mid Atlantic Innocence Project, The Innocence Project of Florida, The Georgia Innocence Project, The Idaho Innocence Project, The Medill Innocence Project, The Downstate Illinois Innocence Project, The Innocence Project of Iowa, The Wisconsin Innocence Project, The University of Kentucky Innocence Project, The Innocence Project of New Orleans, The Innocence Project of the Northwest, The Thomas M. Cooley Innocence Project, The Michigan Innocence Clinic, The Innocence Project of Minnesota, the Mississippi Innocence Project, the The Innocence Project at UVA School of Law, The Montana Innocence Project, The Nebraska Innocence Project,The Rocky Mountain Innocence Center, The New England Innocence Project, The New Mexico Innocence and Justice Project, The OHIO Innocence Project, The Pennsylvania Innocence Project, The Palmetto Innocence Project, The Texas Innocence Network, The Innocence Project of Texas, and The Wesleyan Innocence Project. (Special thanks to Attorney Scott M. Kareff for this resource listing)

As a result of the work that started with two men and a dream, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld created a very well respected Network of Individuals who share in the same goal, to free the innocent. Through their worldwide website at www.innocenceproject.org , Scheck and Neufeld have gained the respect of the world, as they have taken the DNA Evidence Provision to a new standard.

Our question is simple? Where are the other States NOT LISTED ABOVE in their pursuit of Freeing the Innocent Man through usage of technology? Simply said... They are nowhere to be seen!

Attorney Karreff stated that "Having looked into your (The Robert Paisola Foundation) organization, it's mission and its achievements, The Innocence Project is aware and applauds you for your successes that you have had" We thank Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, Mr. Kareff and their organization for their notice of the success that we are having around the world! There is no better endorsement than that of Attorney Karreff on behalf of the FOUNDERS of the Innocence Project, and The Innocence Project itself.. his clients!

One thing that Attorney Karreff pointed out in his letter to our office was that even though our successes are and have been noticed on a worldwide basis, there are still people who may believe that we can assist or have the ability and funding to deal with DNA Specific Issues.

This truly makes sense, as the world is aware of the power of DNA Testing, and the decisive changes that it can make to a family of the falsely accused and its global scientific value.

We want to be completely clear to our readers that we do not deal with DNA issues and do not have the ability to assist those seeking exoneration via DNA Extraction and Comparison Methodologies. This is where we simply ask you to visit the Innocence Project Website and "get in line" as you seek the assistance you deserve. If you need assistance not in the scientific realm, but of an investigative nature, we can assist you.

What we do at the Robert Paisola Foundation is much different than what Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld do with their Network of Affiliate Agencies listed above. We use the media and our investigative techniques and technology to not only prove a mans innocence, but through usage of Investigative Media Techniques and endorsements from world renowned experts across the globe we create public awareness using our vast networks to ensure that EVERYBODY INVOLVED, including the Court, The Judges, The Prosecutors, The Inmates, The Families, Defense Counsel, The Prosecution and most importantly, our readers, viewers and listeners simply know and understand that there is a problem that must be resolved. We do not churn the courts with paperwork, we do not grandstand, we simply point out the issues that have created the illegal conduct that Imprisoned the Condemned , regardless of the "political correctness" of our methods.

The bottom line is if you choose to screw with one of our clients, and you make a mistake, your statements will be heard worldwide. We promise you that.

The Innocence Project that was started by Scheck and Neufeld is applauded by The Robert Paisola Foundation for their work to free the innocent. We are similar, however there are many differences. And you will see in the future, as we forensically examine the Harry Blausey Case based in Licking County (Newark, Ohio) that we are spending a very large sum of money to do what the trial counsel failed to do, and to present that to the people that count, The American Public and Judge Thomas Marcelain of Newark, Ohio, Licking County Ohio via www.HarryBlausey.com.

You should also know that Scheck and Neufeld have a very sophisticated method for accepting cases and that because of the OJ Simpson Trial, they have gained the right to pick and choose who they represent. We understand that they have even created a way to authorize, license and sponsor agencies that support their ideals. And money is generated from the creation and fees generated at their classes, seminars, conferences, clinics, and workshops in the field of Criminal Justice. They have even trademarked their Name INNOCENCE PROJECT ! Impressive!

So, even though we know that the intentions of their organization are somewhat parallel to our missions and goals, we need to again state, we can not assist with issues involving the "Innocence Network" including Murder Issues and Sexual Assault Issues, as we leave that to the worlds best.. Scheck and Neufeld.

Therefore, we want to make a public statement that if you need assistance in the areas covered by The Innocence Network, contact one of their affiliates listed above or below. If you are in a state that does not have an official innocence project, including Utah, we ask one simple question... WHY?

Scheck and Neufeld, publically state that in addition to working on behalf of those who may have been wrongfully convicted of crimes throughout the United States, The Innocence Project performs research and advocacy related to the causes of wrongful convictions. The Innocence Project is a member of the Innocence Network, which brings together a number of innocence organizations from across the United States.

As of July 23, 2009, 240 defendants previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing. Almost all of these convictions involved some form of sexual assault and approximately 25% involved murder. (See Wikipedia)

As of July 23, 2009, 240 defendants previously convicted of serious crimes (Murder Issues and Sexual Assault Issues) in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing. Almost all of these convictions involved some form of sexual assault and approximately 25% involved murder.(See Wikipedia)

The Robert Paisola Foundation pays high regard to these men who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of justice and commends their organization for their dedicated focus on Sexual Assault and Murder. This is now essential to our society.

We thank Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, Attorney Scott M. Kareff and the entire Innocence Project Team for their acknowledgment of our accomplishments. This means more than you know.

We are in the process of garnering support throughout the country so that The Robert Paisola Foundation, just like The Thomas M. Cooley Innocence Project that are now part of the Innocence Network, will be added to the list of agencies, foundations and individuals who are focused on the goal of freeing the innocent, using a web of agencies in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand to create a non-competitive environment for all who endure to free the enslaved.

In this battle for justice, there are no competitors, just alliances. And the alliances run deep.

We ask Attorney Kareff in this open forum to now allow the hundreds of organizations who work on a daily basis to work side by side with your official clients of the Innocence Project, as they progress toward their mutual goals of reuniting those in The Criminal Justice System with their loved ones. Can you imagine what the world would be like if you were able to continue your trend of freeing 240 innocent people WITH the assistance of hundreds of organizations that share the same ideals as your clients Scheck and Neufeld? We believe that based on statistical data almost 20 percent of the imprisoned population is truly innocent... guess how many are of African American Descent? You know the numbers.

In the meantime, we honor our different approaches to freeing the accused, and pay tribute to the scientific methods of dealing crimes such as Sexual Assault and Murder, but ask you to now open the doors of freedom to men like Harry Blausey, Rick Koerber, Steve Cloward,Robert Lambert and Many others, who represent a new generation of perceived "White Collar Defendants" who are unjustly incarcerated for many years because of illegal and unethical issues with Counsel, Side Deals with the Prosecution, "Counsel who SOLD OUT for other Clients", The Media, The Public Paid Investigators, The Paid vs Non Paid Lawyers and The American Public, who were all convicted in the media... many months if not years before their "day in court"

Thank you Attorney Scott M. Kareff and your firm for your support. We are here 24/7 if you need us!

To your continued success,

Robert Paisola
President
The Robert Paisola Foundation , The Prison Partners Network and BOPWatchdog.com
www.RobertPaisola.com
vindication@robertpaisola.org
The Robert Paisola Foundation (Does not deal with DNA Innocence Project Issues)
63 East 11400 South
Suite 407
Sandy, Utah 84070

Note:
If you are charged with a sexual assault or a murder, please visit the website of Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. If you are someone that they can not assist, please feel free to email us your story. Please be detailed and specific, so that we may adequately review your case. If you have any questions regarding this differentiation between The Robert Paisola Foundation and the classes, seminars, conferences, clinics, and workshops presented by Attorney Scott M. Kareff's clients, please contact us at vindication@robertpaisola.org

This is a list of sites that may also be able to assist you:

Alaska Innocence Project
P.O. Box 201656
Anchorage, AK 99520-1656

Arizona Justice Project
Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
PO BOX 877906
Tempe, AZ 99520-1656

Northern Arizona Justice Project
Robert Schehr, Chair
Department of Criminal Justice
Northern Arizona University
P.O. Box 15005
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5005

Innocence Project Arkansas
School of Law Legal Clinic
Robert A. Leflar Law Center
1 University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479-575-3056

Midwestern Innocence Project
6320 Brookside Plaza #1500
Kansas City, MO 64113

California and Hawaii Innocence Project
California Western School of Law
225 Cedar Street
San Diego, CA 92101

Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University
500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95053-0422

University of California - Irvine
(not a project, but a resource)
William Thompson
Department of Criminology, Law & Society
University of California
Irvine, CA 92697-7080

Colorado Innocence Project
370 17th Street
Suite 4500
Denver, CO 80202
303-863-1000

Connecticut Innocence Project
c/o McCarter & English
Cityplace I
185 Asylum Street, 36th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103

New England Innocence Project
Goodwin Procter LLP
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109

Office of the Public Defender
Carvel State Building
820 French Street, 3rd Floor
Wilimington, DE 19801

Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project
4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016

Innocence Project of Florida
1100 E. Park Ave.
Tallahassee, FL 32301

Georgia Innocence Project
752 1/2 North Highland Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30306

Idaho Innocence Project
Mail Stop 1515
Boise State University
1910 University Drive
Boise, ID 83725-1515

Center on Wrongful Convictions **
Northwestern University School of Law
357 East Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611

Medill Innocence Project
Northwestern University
1845 N. Sheridan Ave.
Evanston, IL 60208

Downstate Illinois Innocence Project
Institute for Legal and Policy Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield
One University Plaza
MS Public Affairs Center 451
Springfield, IL 62703-5407

Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis
Clinic, Wrongful Convictions Component
735 West New York Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202

Innocence Project of Iowa
P.O. Box 93
Estherville, Iowa 51335

Midwestern Innocence Project
6320 Brookside Plaza #1500
Kansas City, MO 64113

Midwestern Innocence Project
6320 Brookside Plaza #1500
Kansas City, MO 64113

University of Kentucky Innocence Project
630 College of Law
Rm. 225
Lexington, KY 40506-0048

Kentucky Innocence Project
100 Fair Oaks Lane
Ste. 301
Frankfort, KY 40601

Innocence Project New Orleans
3301 Chartres Street
New Orleans, LA 70117
Phone: (504) 943-1902
Fax:(504) 943-1905

New England Innocence Project
Goodwin Procter LLP
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109

Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project
4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016

Maryland Office of the Public Defender Innocence Project
Office of the Public Defender for the State of Maryland
201 East Baltimore Street
Suite 1600
Baltimore, MD 21202

New England Innocence Project
Goodwin Procter LLP
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109

Thomas M. Cooley Innocence Project
300 S. Capitol Ave. P.O. Box 13038
Lansing, MI 48901

Michigan Innocence Clinic
1029 Legal Research Building
625 State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 4810

Innocence Project of Minnesota
Hamline University School of Law
1536 Hewitt Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104

Mississippi Innocence Project
University of Mississippi School of Law
P.O. Box 1848
University, MS 38677

Innocence Project New Orleans (operates in Louisiana and Mississippi)
3301 Chartres Street
New Orleans, LA 70117
Phone: (504) 943-1902
Fax:(504) 943-1905

Midwestern Innocence Project
6320 Brookside Plaza #1500
Kansas City, MO 64113

Montana Innocence Project
P.O. Box 8484
Missoula, MT 59802

Nebraska Innocence Project
P.O. Box 24183
Omaha, NE 68124-0183

Midwestern Innocence Project
6320 Brookside Plaza #1500
Kansas City, MO 64113

Rocky Mountain Innocence Center
University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law
358 South 700 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84102

New England Innocence Project
Goodwin Procter LLP
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109

Centurion Ministries **
221 Witherspoon Street
Princeton, NJ 08542

New Mexico Innocence and Justice Project
University of New Mexico School of Law
1117 Stanford NE
Albuquerque, NM 87131

Innocence Project at Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School - Yeshiva University **
100 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10011

Second Look Program
Brooklyn Law School
250 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201

Pace Post-Conviction Project
Barbara C. Salken Criminal Justice Clinic
78 North Broadway, Room G210
White Plains, NY 10603

Reinvestigation Project
Office of the Appellate Defender
11 Park Place, Suite 1601
New York, NY 10007

North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence
Duke/University of North Carolina Law Schools
PO Box 52446
Shannon Plaza Station
Durham, NC 27717

Ohio Innocence Project
University of Cincinnati College of Law
P.O. Box 210040
Cincinnatti, OH 45221-0020

Oklahoma Indigent Defense System - DNA Forensic Testing Program
P.O. Box 926
Norman, OK 73070

Midwestern Innocence Project
6320 Brookside Plaza #1500
Kansas City, MO 64113

Duquesne Law Post-Conviction DNA Project
600 Forbes Avenue, 632 Fisher Hall
Pittsburgh, PA 15282

The Innocence Institute of Western Pennsylvania
c/o Point Park College Department of Journalism and Mass Communications
201 Wood Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1984

Pennsylvania Innocence Project
Temple University Beasley School of Law
1719 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122

New England Innocence Project
Goodwin Procter LLP
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109

Palmetto Innocence Project
P.O. Box 11623
Columbia, SC 29211

Texas Innocence Network
100 Law Center
Houston, TX 77204-6060

Texas Center for Actual Innocence
University of Texas School of Law
727 East Dean Keeton Street
Austin, TX 78705

Innocence Project of Texas
1511 Texas Avenue
Lubbock, TX 79401

Wesleyan Innocence Project
Texas Wesleyan Univesity School of Law
1515 Commerce St.
Fort Worth, TX 76102

Rocky Mountain Innocence Center -
Not A Robert Paisola Foundation Partner
358 South 700 East, B235
Salt Lake City, UT 84103

New England Innocence Project
Goodwin Procter LLP
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109

Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project
4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016

Innocence Project at UVA School of Law
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901

Innocence Project Northwest
University of Washington
William H. Gates Hall, Suite 265
P.O. Box 85110
Seattle, WA 98145-1110

Wisconsin Innocence Project **
University of Wisconsin Law School
Remington Center
Madison, WI 53706

Rocky Mountain Innocence Center
358 South 700 East, B235
Salt Lake City, UT 84103

Association in Defense of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC)
85 King Street East
Suite 318
Toronto, Ontario M5C 1G3

University of British Columbia Law Innocence Project
1822 East Mall
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1

Osgoode Hall Innocence Project
Osgoode Hall Law School at York University
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3
Canada

University of Leeds Innocence Project
20 Lyddon Terrace
Leeds, LS2 9JT United Kingdom

Innocence Network UK
c/o University of Bristol
Department of Law
Willis Memorial Building
Queen's Road
Bristol BS8 1 RJ
United Kingdom

Griffith University Innocence Project
Parklands Drive
Southport, 4215
QLD 30306
Australia

The Sellenger Center
Edith Cowan University
270 Jonndalup Drive
Joondalup, WA 6027
Australia

University of Melbourne Innocence Project
Vanessa Stafford, Director
University of Melbourne Law School
185 Pelham Street
Carlton Melbourne
Victoria 3040
Australia

Innocence Project New Zealand
School of Psychology
Victoria University of Wellington
P.O. Box 600
Wellington, New Zealand

"Music is the language of the Universe" Even for Prisoners

2009-06-29T18:54:00.001-07:00

What more can we say... Congratulations for Treating your Inmates with dignity, respect and providing them a way to GIVE BACK

Thank You
Robert Paisola
CEO
The Prison Partners Foundation USA

Internet child pornography consumers aren’t always pedophiles

2009-02-25T11:38:00.000-08:00

The proliferation of Internet pornography has been a boon to both the novice and most seasoned consumers of erotica. Every taste and proclivity — from the most pedestrian soft core porn interest to the most twisted (e.g. sadistic or degrading) and illegal (e.g. child pornography) interests — can be indulged in the privacy of one’s own home, often at no cost. The more problematic the interest, the more likely it will engage penal sanctions, and the more important it will be for lawyers to understand what the behaviour is all about.

Internet pornography consumers are as heterogeneous a group as there is, and include, among others (of a non-exhaustive list): the repressed, the shy, the fearful, the insatiable, the compulsive and addictive, the impulsive, the inadequate, fetishists, masochists, deviants (a social and moral term) and paraphiliacs (a medical and diagnostic term) and oh yes, the “normals.” Major mental disorders like bipolar disorder (i.e. mania) are occasionally implicated.

Contrary to views held by some, including law enforcement, lawyers and perhaps even judges, not all consumers of child pornography are pedophiles. There are many reasons why an accused may have accessed or be in possession of child pornography obtained through the Internet. Prevention of victimization and denunciation of the behaviour are clearly forefront issues, no matter what motivations underlie the behaviour, but it is always important for the justice system to know who it is dealing with and to not mischaracterize the offender and the offence.

In dealing with issues and behaviours that have psychological or emotional underpinnings, there is no substitute for a detailed forensic psychiatric (medicolegal) assessment. These frequently multidisciplinary evaluations consider not just the problem behaviour, but the whole person in the context of his life history. In the case of accused caught possessing or disseminating Internet child pornography, a detailed evaluation of this kind is critically important in defining the motivation for the behaviour and assessing and managing future risk.

From defence counsel’s perspective, understanding what motivated her client to participate in the activity is critical. If there are mental health considerations or psychological issues that have played a role in the behaviour, then bringing that out in a detailed and well-reasoned report can and should influence a more therapeutic and risk- management oriented sentence. Of equal importance, it would be more challenging for the court to meet the aims of justice — ensuring punishment, protecting the public, rehabilitating the offender and preventing recidivism — without an assessment of this kind. Treating these offenders as a homogeneous group — which they are not — could also lead to a one-size-fits-all approach. A failure to discriminate between offender and offence variables that allow for tailor-made sentences is generally anathema to those interests and values the justice system works hard to uphold.

There are subclasses of Internet child pornography consumers, including those who pursue this type of imagery and stimuli deliberately and exclusively, those who stumble across it and who, apart from its erotic content, were further titillated by the forbidden and illegal nature of the material. There are individuals with polymorphous sexual interests for whom novelty and variety is at least, if not more important, than any one particular type of material.

This latter group, as well as those who exhibit addictive and compulsive cybersex propensities (Internet use addiction is a contentious diagnostic area), may become gripped by their need or addiction and obsession to a degree that impacts or dampens their judgment in discriminating from one (acceptable) source to another (unacceptable) source.

While there are limitations in an expert’s ability to definitively diagnose or rule out pedophilia (an erotic preference for pre-pubescent children — a key diagnostic consideration for Internet child pornography users) — an in-depth evaluation is the best means for getting at the truth of the offender’s sexual interests and makeup, or any other psychological motivating factor. The assessment subsumes a detailed psychiatric and sexological evaluation, phallometric testing (a physiological measure of sexual arousal), access to collateral information (individuals who have known the accused and potentially interacted sexually with him), as well as laboratory investigations and, often, psychological testing (including use of risk assessment tools).

Experienced forensic psychiatrists generally approach cases featuring this behaviour with a high index of suspicion (i.e. a questioning and even cynical approach — an occupational hazard) about the nature and purpose of the behaviour and the diagnostic realm to which it belongs. Pedophilia is invariably hypothesized, but is only tenable if the individual has a fairly entrenched and predominant interest in prepubescent children that has manifested in (masturbatory) fantasy, urges and behaviour and he has acted on these urges, is distressed by them or has experienced interpersonal difficulty as a result.

There may be subgroups of pedophiles out there who have lived exclusively in fantasy and have the wherewithal, self-control and enough of a repertoire of acceptable sexual interests and behaviour to have successfully avoided acting out (some have just avoided getting caught). In the (false, as it turns out) security of their home, computer access created the first instance in which a miscalculation (possibly brought about by the bounty of forbidden and erotically stimulating material) caused them to fly headfirst into the radar.

Again, distinguishing the pedophile from an accused who viewed and downloaded Internet child pornography because, among so many things (on his computer), it met his needs for novelty and diversity is a different diagnostic matter, has different implications for society’s risk and wellbeing and, arguably, is an entirely different situation for the justice system.

It would be very important for the assessor to consider, apart from all of the information noted above, the manner in which the accused went about accessing the child pornography (did he pay for it, join chat lines, take steps to access or meet children), the exclusivity or degree of representation of child pornography in his collection of erotic or pornographic material and the degree to which any interest in children, deduced from the materials seized or websites visited, reflects previously enacted subtle or overt sexually motivated behaviours toward children.

The lawyer and expert should communicate prior to the assessment so that the lawyer can be informed and, in turn, inform the client of what to expect, allay concerns, review confidentiality and duty to warn considerations and stress the importance of honest disclosure (and the pitfalls of a lack thereof). Ongoing communication is ideal. The lawyer will want to know where the assessment is headed and the implications of either a potentially positive or negative assessment on legal strategies.

Individuals convicted of crimes falling under the general category of Internet child pornography will already bear the designation “sex offender.” If the truth about the offender’s sexual diagnosis (or lack of one) and motivation is not brought out, then he may further be labelled a “pedophile” — an even more noxious pejorative and socially loaded designation that could dog him for life.

The LDS Church Has Rebaptized Ted Bundy

2009-02-12T08:32:00.000-08:00

Tuesday, Feb 10, 2009, at 07:53 AM
The LDS Church Has Rebaptized Ted Bundy
Posted By Helen Radkey
BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD -Guid- ↑

Theodore Robert Bundy, prolific serial killer and rapist—one of the most notorious and despised murderers in U.S. history—has been posthumously baptized by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Proxy rites for Bundy, consisting of a baptism and an “endowment” ceremony, were performed on May 28, 2008 in the Jordan River Utah Temple, a Mormon temple in South Jordan, a suburb 16 miles south of downtown Salt Lake City.

Theodore Bundy, who became better known as Ted Bundy, was born on November 24, 1946, in Burlington, Vermont. He is currently listed in the LDS Church’s database of posthumous ordinances, the International Genealogical Index (IGI), under his birth name, Theodore Robert Cowell, to conceal his criminal identity.

Between 1974 and 1978, Ted Bundy raped and killed an untold number of young women in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, and Florida. Authorities believe his victims numbered well over 100. On January 24, 1989, after a ten-year stay of execution, Bundy was executed in the electric chair at Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida. Many spectators cheered and toasted his death with champagne.

In the fall of 1974, during the time he was murdering innocent women, Ted Bundy moved to Salt Lake City. The following year, he joined the LDS Church. Bundy’s involvement with the Mormon religion was apparently short-lived. His name may have been removed from Mormon membership rolls because of his criminal record.

Throwing justice to the wind, less than twenty years after Ted Bundy’s execution, and in the state of Utah—where Bundy once roamed and brutally killed young women without remorse—the LDS Church has secretly reclaimed its most cold-blooded killer.

Budget woes prompt states to rethink prison policy, Posted by Robert Paisola

2009-01-14T00:59:00.000-08:00

Robert Paisola (AP) NEW YORK » Their budgets in crisis, governors, legislators and prison officials across the nation are making or considering policy changes that will likely remove tens of thousands of offenders from prisons and parole supervision.

Collectively, the pending and proposed initiatives could add up to one of biggest shifts ever in corrections policy, putting into place cost-saving reforms that have struggled to win political support in the tough-on-crime climate of recent decades.

"Prior to this fiscal crisis, legislators could tinker around the edges -- but we're now well past the tinkering stage," said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, which advocates alternatives to incarceration.

"Many political leaders who weren't comfortable enough, politically, to do it before can now -- under the guise of fiscal responsibility -- implement programs and policies that would be win/win situations, saving money and improving corrections," Mauer said

In California, faced with a projected $42 billion deficit and prison overcrowding that has triggered a federal lawsuit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to eliminate parole for all offenders not convicted of violent or sex-related crimes, reducing the parole population by about 70,000. He also wants to divert more petty criminals to county jails and grant early release to more inmates -- steps that could trim the prison population by 15,000 over the next 18 months.

In Kentucky, where the inmate population had been soaring, even some murderers and other violent offenders are benefiting from a temporary cost-saving program that has granted early release to nearly 2,000 inmates.

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is proposing early release of about 1,000 inmates. New York Gov. David Paterson wants early release for 1,600 inmates as well as an overhaul of the so-called Rockefeller Drug Laws that impose lengthy mandatory sentences on many nonviolent drug offenders.

"These laws have neither curbed drug use nor enhanced public safety," said Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "Instead, they have ruined thousands of lives and annually wasted millions of tax dollars in prison costs."

Policy-makers in Michigan, one of four states that spend more money on prisons than higher education, are awaiting a report later this month from the Council of State Governments' Justice Center on ways to trim fast-rising corrections costs, likely including sentencing and parole modifications.

"There's a new openness to taking a look," said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, a Republican who in the past has questioned some prison-reform proposals. "What we'll see are changes being made that will have a positive impact four, five, six years down the road."

Even before the recent financial meltdown, policy-makers in most states were wrestling with ways to contain corrections costs. The Pew Center's Public Safety Performance Project has projected that state and federal prison populations -- under current policies -- will grow by more than 190,000 by 2011, to about 1.7 million, at a cost to the states of $27.5 billion.

"Prisons are becoming less and less of a sacred cow," said Adam Gelb, the Pew project's director. "The budget crisis is giving leaders on both sides of the aisle political cover they need to tackle issues that would be too tough to tackle when budgets are flush."

In contrast to past economic downturns, Gelb said, states now have better data on how to effectively supervise nonviolent offenders in their communities so prison populations can be reduced without increasing the threat to public safety.

Safety remains a potent factor. In California, for example, the state correctional officers' union contends Schwarzenegger's proposals will fuel more crime.

In Idaho, a combination of budget cuts and prison overcrowding contributed to an uprising Jan. 2 in a former prison workshop that was converted into a temporary cell block. Inmates who engaged in vandalism and arson had been placed there as part of a cost-cutting effort to move other prisoners back to Idaho from more expensive quarters at a private prison in Oklahoma.

Thomas Sneddon, a former Santa Barbara, Calif., prosecutor who is now executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, said he and his colleagues support reappraisals of corrections policies yet worry constantly that dangerous criminals will be released unwisely.

"I don't think the public at large has any idea of who's in these prisons," Sneddon said. "If they went and visited, they'd say 'My God, don't let any of these people out.'"

He noted that many states are seeking to send fewer offenders back to prison for technical violations of parole conditions. Some of these violations are indeed relatively minor, Sneddon said, but often they are accompanied by more serious criminal behavior that warrants a return to prison.

As budgetary pressures worsen, some advocacy groups are concerned that spending cuts will target the very programs needed to help inmates avoid re-offending after release -- education, vocational and drug-treatment programs.

"The idea that we'd cut programs and then release inmates early is a toxic combination," said Pat Nolan, vice president of Prison Fellowship. "Just opening prison doors and letting people out with no preparation -- that's cruel to the offender and dangerous to public."

However, Nolan, a former California legislator who served time in a federal prison on a racketeering charge, sees the current climate as ripe for the kind of reforms Prison Fellowship has advocated with its Christian-based outreach programs.

"It's forcing the legislators to see the actual costs of imprisonment, because it's coming out of the budget for schools, roads, hospitals," he said.

The Council of State Government's Justice Center has been working with 10 states to develop options for curbing prison populations without jeopardizing public safety. Tactics used in Texas and Kansas have included early release for inmates who complete specified programs, more sophisticated community supervision of offenders, and expanded treatment and diversion programs.

"There's an unprecedented level of interest in this kind of thinking," said the Justice Center's director, Michael Thompson. "It's a combination of fiscal pressure and a certain fatigue of doing the same thing as 20 years ago and getting the same return."

In Florida, where prisons are so crowded that the state has acquired tents for possible use to house inmates, officials say 19 new prisons may be needed over the next five years. As an alternative, Corrections Secretary Walter McNeil told lawmakers they should re-evaluate the state's hard-line sentencing policies and look at ways to help released inmates avoid returning to prison.

One important variable is the role of private prisons, which some advocacy groups consider less accountable that state-run prisons. Elizabeth Alexander of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project expressed concern that fiscally struggling states would rely increasingly on private operators.

The largest private prison firm, Nashville, Tenn.-based Corrections Corporation of America, operates in 20 states and says some of them have asked if CCA can expand its capacity so more beds don't need to be added to the state-run system.

"Of the states we do business with, none have made prison construction a priority in this economic environment," said Tony Grande, CCA's executive vice president. "Our partnership with the states will become even stronger. ...We want to be a part of their financial solution."

Feds indict Utah County residents in online pharmacy sting, Posted by Robert Paisola

2008-10-10T12:41:00.000-07:00

EXCLUSIVE! WATCH THE VIDEO LIVE!

Thursday, 09 October 2008

Feds indict Utah County residents in online pharmacy sting

Joe Pyrah - Daily Herald

Eight Utah County residents are under indictment for illegally selling millions of prescription drugs online, federal investigators announced Wednesday.

Beginning in 2003, Dr. James A. Brinton and Gregory J. Crosby, both of Provo, along with others, are alleged to have illegally imported prescription drugs from Mexico, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Utah.

One count of the nine-count indictment alleges that six of the 18 defendants agreed to sell subpotent pills to customers. Buyers who did not have a valid prescription were given one by the online business without a medical evaluation or were simply given the drugs without a prescription.

"Those running illicit pharmacies are no different than your typical drug trafficker," said Frank Smith, of the Drug Enforcement Administration. "We are going after these criminals with the same tenacity that we are after heroin or meth dealers."

Authorities believe that more than 11 million pills were sold for millions of dollars over the past five years.

The case is being investigated by the DEA, the FBI, the IRS, the U.S. Secret Service and the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing.

Court records state that the group used the Web sites lighthousemeds.com and federalmeds.com. During undercover purchases, DEA agents say the pills they purchased were unmarked and far below the purity levels reported on the label.

"The risk is that while those running these illegal businesses are making millions of dollars, those using the business to order prescription medication may very well be putting their health at risk," said U.S. Attorney for Utah Brett Tolman.

Other charges in the indictment include money laundering and making false statements to DEA investigators.

Prosecutors also announced their intention to seize the property allegedly used to commit the crimes. The list includes hundreds of thousands of dollars in bank accounts, real estate, a 2005 Ford Mustang GT and a 2006 Mercedes-Benz SLK280.

Charged in the indictment are James A. Brinton, age 61, of Provo; Gregory J. Crosby, age 52, of Provo; Noah Sifuentes, age 56, of Orem; Christina K. Haramija, age 30, of Lehi; Laura B. Harding, age 32, of Lehi; Edgar U. Flores-Cuevas, age 35, of Mexico; Martha Forrest, age 65, of Salt Lake City; Kenneth E. Forrest, age 42, of Provo; Treila Shumway, age 38, of Manti; Timothy A. Shields, age 44, of Provo; Deborah E. McCoard, age 41, of Spring City; Kimberly Lobdell, age 38, of South Jordan; Charles J. Stuart III, age 51, of Mapleton; Rex E. Southwick, age 33, of Orange, Calif.; Thomas Myers, age 47, of Sandy; Enrique Hipolito-Ruiz, age 58, and Victor Francisco Hipolito-Martinez, age 35, both of Tijuana, Mexico; and Jorge Hipolito-Martinez, age 30, of Soler, Mexico.

Flores-Cuevas was arrested on a federal complaint in May and is in custody. Federal arrest warrants have been issued for the three other defendants from Mexico. Summons will be issued to the other defendants to appear in federal court for an initial appearance.

Accused fake lawyer won't represent himself Posted by Robert Paisola

2008-09-16T08:59:00.000-07:00

BISMARCK, North Dakota (AP) -- A man accused of impersonating a lawyer in federal courts in at least 10 states has pleaded not guilty to two felony charges -- and won't be representing himself at trial.

Howard O. Kieffer, 53, is director of Federal Defense Associates, of Santa Ana, California, which promises clients "specialized, creative and tenacious criminal defense, post-conviction representation and zealous Bureau of Prisons advocacy."

But Kieffer doesn't plan to exercise his right to defend himself. He pleaded not guilty to mail fraud and making false statements charges during his arraignment Monday.

Bismarck attorney Tim Purdon represented Kieffer at the arraignment, but said Kieffer intends to hire Joshua S. Lowther, of Savannah, Georgia, as his defense attorney.

Court records say Kieffer represented a number of clients, including a former St. Louis Blues hockey player who pleaded guilty to plotting to kill his agent, and a Colorado woman who was convicted of soliciting the murder of her former husband.

Kieffer, of Duluth, Minnesota, remains free on bond.

He was granted permission in March 2007 to practice law in North Dakota's federal courts. He did not handle any North Dakota cases, but is accused of using his "good standing" in the state to get permission to practice in other federal jurisdictions. U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland ordered Kieffer disbarred last month.

The mail fraud charge carries a possible penalty of 20 years in prison, while the charge of making false statements is punishable by five years in prison. Both carry a possible $250,000 fine. The actual sentence would probably be much lighter if Kieffer is convicted, said U.S. Magistrate Charles Miller, who handled Kieffer's arraignment in Bismarck.

Kieffer defended former St. Louis Blues player Michael Danton, who was charged four years ago with plotting to kill his agent, David Frost. Danton pleaded guilty in July 2004. He is serving a 7½-year sentence at a minimum-security federal prison in Sandstone, Minnesota.

Kieffer also defended Gwen Bergman, of Aspen, Colorado, against charges that she used $30,000 from her mother's retirement fund to hire someone to kill her former husband.

U.S. District Judge Walker Miller, who heard Bergman's case in Colorado without a jury, found her guilty in May of two murder-for-hire felonies. Kieffer withdrew as her lawyer July 9, after The Denver Post reported that he never graduated from law school and was not licensed to practice law.

Miller has been considering whether to grant Bergman a new trial. Federal prosecutors have resisted the request, saying Bergman's defense team included a licensed attorney.

Kieffer runs an Internet discussion group on federal prison issues and has been quoted in The Washington Post, Slate.com and other publications as an expert. The Association of Federal Defense Attorneys once offered an audio question-and-answer session with Kieffer as an opportunity for attorneys to earn required credits in legal education.

Robin Washington, the editorial page editor of the Duluth News Tribune, wrote in a column Monday that Kieffer had asked to be named as a citizen representative on the paper's editorial board.

"His name was put into consideration. We could do worse than have a nationally recognized federal criminal defense lawyer on our team," Washington wrote. "Except, by all indications, it looks like he wasn't one."

Free Lessons On The Secret Today! Posted By Robert Paisola

2008-02-06T01:04:00.001-08:00

Sex offender names become public At Brigham Young University, Posted By Robert Paisola

2007-10-06T12:40:00.000-07:00

Starting Oct. 28 at the administration building, BYU students can have legal access to the names of sex offenders in their classes, housing complexes and wards.

BYU officials are complying with a new law, The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act, requiring colleges to provide students with a list of registered sex offenders who are enrolled or working at their schools.

"I think it's a really good idea," said Tiffany Palmer, 19, a sophomore from Blanding, San Juan, majoring in communications. "If there is a sex offender living anywhere near me, I would want to know, especially if they were going to be in my ward or in my classes."

Patricia Mills, program coordinator for the Utah County Rape and Crisis Center, said sexual offenses are addictions like alcoholism. She said years later the desires can still exist, and sex offenders are likely to strike again.

"Sex offenders don't suddenly become non-sex offenders," Mills said. "They will rape up to 30-40 times before they get caught. They don't get cured of it; they have to learn to control it. Most don't, unless they are forced to by court ruling."

The requirement for public sex offender registries is nothing new. The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act is an extension of Megan's Law, a law designed to notify people of sex offenders living in their area. Megan's Law was created after Megan Kanka of New Jersey was murdered by her neighbor, who no one knew was a convicted sex offender.

The Official State of Utah Sex Offender Registry Web site (www.cr.ex.state.ut.us/community/sexoffenders/) offers a searchable database of about 5,800 registered sex offenders living in Utah with information including the person's name, aliases, age, description, picture, address, make of vehicle, crime convicted of and potential target victims. There are 20 registered sex offenders under the zip code 84606.

"The state has had this database accessible for years. The difference is now it tells us that the individual is not only on the list, he's a student or employee at BYU," said Lt. Greg Barber, manager of administrative services.

There is a concern for protecting the sex offender's right to privacy and opportunity to change.

"While I think it's important to make the names of sex offenders available to potential victims, I think it's a shame the law isn't allowed to be more Atonement-like and forgiving of the incident," said Harley King, 23, a senior from Greeley, Colo., majoring in biochemistry.

Scott McGregor, 23, a junior from Apple Valley, Minn., majoring in linguistics said while he's very opposed to sexual criminals, he thinks everyone deserves a second chance.

"I think it's a massive invasion of privacy and denies the culminations of individual repentance," McGregor said.

Other students disagree.

"I don't think it's an invasion of their privacy at all because it was their wrong," Palmer said. "They invaded someone else's privacy in the first place."

Megan's Law requires sex offenders to register within 10 days of moving into a new state or community every year for 10 years after the end of their sentence. Part of registering includes stating intentions of employment or enrollment at an institution of higher education.

The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act dictates that as soon as information about a sex offender enrolling at an institution is received by the state, the information must be given to the institution's law enforcement agency. The institution must then make that information available to the student body.

According to Machelle Rodriguez, program manager for Utah Sex Offender Registration Program, the state will provide institutions of higher education's police departments with a notice stating the sex offender's name, date of birth, affiliation with institution, approximate start date at the institution and how to obtain more information through the state Web site.

"I think it brings awareness to the institutions and agencies that this is a population you need to watch for," Rodriguez said. "The information is available if you want to check somebody."

There are no requirements of the institutions as to how the information should be provided, only that it be accessible to students who request it. BYU will make the list available in the campus police office in the administration building. Any member of the public can view the list upon request. Beyond that, Barber said he's unsure what measures of notification the police department will take.

"If there are people on the list such that it would be in the best interest of the university to make notification of them, then we will deal with that," Barber said. "We'll just have to wait and see what's on the list."

Possibilities for notification could include contacting the sex offenders' neighbors through mail or door-to-door visits. If necessary, the list might be made accessible online from the BYU Web site.

The definition of sex offenders covers everything from streaking to child molestation. Barber said the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act deals with the more serious sex crimes, specifically those dealing with children. He said he doesn't predict BYU's list to be very long compared to other universities because of BYU's standards.

"Obviously any sex crime would be a violation of honor code and the student could be kicked out," Barber said.

Barber said he thinks the BYU application process, including the ecclesiastical endorsement, would naturally screen out individuals who might be on the registry.

Jenny Evanson, 22, a senior from Seattle, Wash., majoring in psychology said she has the right to know and would be interested in looking at the list.

"I think it's an unfortunate means to a just end," Evanson said. "I would like to know who the people are, not to be vindictive, not to be vengeful, but to be informed - to be safe."

Mills said the registry is not an invasion of privacy but a consequence of a choice.

"They (sex offenders) gave up their rights when they made a conscious decision to victimize another person," Mills said. "The victim did not get a choice, and yet she has to live with that for the rest of her life. The sex offender has to live with those consequences too."

Mills said maybe 10 to 15 percent of the rape survivors they deal with are BYU students.

"BYU does not have a lot of the same problems as other schools because there aren't alcohol and fraternities," she said. "But it still happens at BYU, and it's usually an acquaintance rape and unfortunately we don't always know about it."

Mills said she thinks many students don't report sex crimes because they are afraid the details of the situation could get them kicked out of BYU.

"A lot of cases we see have involved alcohol or happen in the bedroom - both being against the honor code," Mills said. "But you need to report them. The police need to know so they can help."

Mills worries about the naivety of women at BYU. She said most sex offenders represent themselves as really nice guys as part of the grooming process used to set up victims.

"Girls at BYU take these guys at face value," Mills said. "They think because he's LDS and he served a mission and he can quote a few scriptures that he's the one. You still have to use common sense and risk reduction to keep yourself safe."

Lawsuit: Sex offenders singled out - Inmates say they're targets in jail

2007-05-29T14:08:00.000-07:00

05/29/2007

Two inmates are suing prison officials for housing them in a cell block known inside the walls as the "Gladiator Pod," where they claim sex offenders are singled out for harsh treatment.One of the men admits he's a sex offender; the other says he's been misclassified as one.

But both claim in separate lawsuits that they've been targeted for abuse by inmates and officers.Tony Ellison, 44, of Exeter and Harvey Pratt, 40, of Massachusetts were assaulted shortly after being moved to the cell block, according to lawsuits pending in federal court.

Ellison said he suffered a 3-inch cut to his forehead in September 2006 from another inmate. Pratt said his beating by two inmates in March 2002 left him with a broken nose, broken ribs and a cut above his eye.In their lawsuits, both men describe the "Gladiator Pod," known officially as the C-pod in the Hancock Building, as home to younger, more combative inmates who are especially intolerant of sex offenders.

Ellison said sex offenders who stay in C-pod because they don't ask for protective custody are beaten or have their belongings stolen. In an interview at the prison last week, Ellison said after he was beaten, he buzzed prison staff for help for seven minutes before someone delivering mail noticed he was bleeding from the head and assisted him."It's a young kid pod," Ellison said. "They all want to be gangsters, and they have no respect.

Each pod has its own mentality, and C-pod is among the worst."Prison spokesman Jeff Lyons said he could not comment on the pending lawsuits or the men's characterization of C-pod. He said only that all inmates are given housing assignments based on their behavior, custody level and program requirements and that the prison takes seriously its obligation to keep inmates safe.Ellison landed in the C-pod after declining to participate in a classification hearing where prison officials assess an inmate's behavior to determine housing and programming requirements.

Ellison says he thought the hearing was optional and opted not to go. Before being relocated to C-pod, Ellison had spent more than four years in another housing unit without trouble, he said. He liked where he was living, had had the same cellmate for three years and had a job that allowed him to work double shifts. He wanted to stay, he said.There was no doubt that Ellison was a sex offender when he came to prison in August 2001.

He had pleaded guilty to nine counts of sexually assaulting three relatives, ages 10 and younger, in Rockingham County Superior Court and received a 30-to 60-year prison sentence. He said he will take the sexual offender treatment program when he nears his parole date and becomes eligible.His lawsuit, which was filed this month and includes many other grievances, accuses prison officials of failing to provide security and retaliating against him by housing him in the C-pod, knowing his offense would put him at risk there.

He said he has been labeled something worse than only a sexual offender: a sexual predator.He claims prison officials have also discriminated against him because he molested children. Ellison claims that when he complained to a unit manager about his beating, the manager told Ellison the assault was his own fault "because of what he came to prison for."A federal judge has given Ellison, who is seeking $1 million, until next month to pay a $12.50 filing fee to avoid having his claims dismissed.

Prison officials have not yet responded to Ellison's lawsuit ,because it was filed recently.Classification disputePratt went to C-pod, he claims, after a prison official unfairly classified him as a sex offender when he arrived at the prison in 2001. His case is more complicated because he was not convicted of being a sex offender.

Pratt is serving a 2- to 6-year prison sentence for a charge of "interfering with custody."

According to court records, he met a 14-year-old girl on the internet and invited her to come to his Quincy, Mass., apartment. He was 33 at the time and denied any sexual or inappropriate interest in the girl. He said he was trying to help her escape a difficult home situation, according to prison records.The victim, however, told the police that Pratt had kissed her and discussed the possibility of sex, according to prison records.

At Pratt's sentencing, Judge Harold Perkins required Pratt to undergo sexual offender treatment program in prison before becoming eligible for parole. And in 2003, parole officials denied Pratt parole because he had not done sex offender treatment.Pratt fought that treatment requirement, and, for reasons that were not explained in available court records, Perkins agreed in 2004 to drop the treatment requirement.

But Pratt said he unfairly remains labeled a sex offender by prison officials and is being required to undergo sex offender treatment before he can be released.Pratt filed his lawsuit in October 2005 and is seeking about $300,000 for numerous claims, including sleep deprivation, denial of due process, unfair disciplinary process and labeling him a sex offender.

A federal judge dismissed some of the claims as beyond the statute of limitations but allowed others, including Pratt's complaints about the sexual offender label.Judge James Muirhead wrote in a court order that other courts have found that inmates must be afforded the appropriate means to challenge a sex offender label in certain circumstances. That was particularly true in one case involving an inmate who, like Pratt, had not been convicted of a sex offense but was labeled a sex offender and required to take sex offender treatment."The court reasoned that 'the stigmatizing effect of being classified as a sex offender constitutes a deprivation of liberty under the Due Process Clause,' " Muirhead quoted in his order.

He concluded that if Pratt can show he was not provided adequate chance to challenge that label and treatment requirement, he may have a claim against prison staff.In their court response, prison officials have denied treating Pratt unfairly and argued that they are allowed to require Pratt to undergo sex offender treatment because while the judge dropped that program as a specific obligation, he did still required Pratt to participate in any counseling and treatment recommended by correction officials.

Prison staff have decided Pratt still remains a candidate for sexual offender treatment.Word spreads fastIn the interview, Ellison confirmed the disfavor a sex offender label brings an inmate inside prison - from inmates and staff. That's especially true for inmates whose crimes have received media attention, he said."It's the most discriminating witch hunt there is," he said. "(Prison staff) tell everybody. I was told within three or four minutes of getting to prison that people knew (of my offense)."Ellison said until he was sent to C-pod, he managed to stay out of harm's way by minding his own business and accepting responsibility for his crime. "I know I have a debt to repay to society.

I have great remorse," he said.But he doesn't believe his debt should include the beatings and discrimination he described in his lawsuit. Ellison is required to share his medical expenses with the inmate who assaulted him. And both were disciplined for the fight, not only Ellison. He doesn't think that is fair.Ellison said he fears more inmates will be assaulted because the prison staff have been shifting more inmates recently and have begun integrating more sex offenders into C-pod."It's a time bomb waiting to explode," he said.

USSG 1B1.13 ,Posted by Robert Paisola

2007-04-18T17:21:00.000-07:00

From BOPWatcher Margy Love:
I am delighted to report that this afternoon the Sentencing Commission announced a proposed amendment to its guideline on sentence reduction for extraordinary and compelling reasons, USSG 1B1.13, which substantially expands the grounds for reduction of sentence under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In announcing the proposed amendment, the Commission credited the ABA for its longtime advocacy for a broad interpretation of the courts' authority under this statute.

The proposed new policy states in pertinent part that:

(A) Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons: Provided that the defendant meets the requirements of subdivision (2) [the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person or to the community]
such reasons "exist under any of the following circumstances:

(i) the defendant is suffering from a terminal illness;

(ii) the defendant is suffering from a permanent physical or medical condition, or is experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the aging process, that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional faciity for which conventional treatment promises no substantial improvement;

(iii) the death or incapacitation of the defendant's only family member capable of caring for the defendant's minor child or minor children; or

(iv) as determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, there exists in the defendant's case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions (i), (ii) and (iii).

(B) Rehabilitation of the Defendant - Pursuant to 28 USC § 994(t), rehabilitation of the defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reasons for purposes of subdivision (1)(A).

This major expansion of the existing guideline policy goes a long way toward the position advocated by the ABA, most recently in testimony by Steve Saltzburg on March 20, 2007. The ABA position was endorsed by the Practitioners Advisory Group, the Federal Defenders, NACDL, and FAMM. As soon as we have the transcript of the Commission's meeting, we will send it around.

Law Office of Margaret Love
15 Seventh Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
202-547-0453
202-236-0484 (cell)