Dateline: December 28, 2009
AN EARLY CHRISTMAS PRESENT FROM THE FLORIDA D.O.C.
Christmas came a few days early for me this year at Tomoka C.I., my 32nd Christmas in prison. One of the big deals in prison is one’s custody classification, with minimum, medium, and close custodies being the generic terms. People on Death Row aren’t really classified, except for “maximum.”
With a life sentence, I have been “close” custody my entire imprisonment, with the exception of leaving Zephyrhills C. I. three times in the 1980’s, unescorted, warden’s orders. In practical terms, the D.O.C. classifies us as to “H.O. status,” “H.O. 1” being the lowest, “H.O.5” the highest, which includes those with escape charges in their records. With the life sentence, I’ve been “H.O.4” for years, one step down from 5. That meant I was housed in the two-man cells, more secure, restricted movement, until this week.
On Tuesday, Dec. 22, the “movement officer” called me down and said I had to move out of E-dorm, the 2-man rooms, non-smoking building, where I’d just moved into on Monday. Why? He said my H.O. status had been dropped down 4 to 2, medium custody. So I went to “J-dorm,” an open dorm,” 78 prisoners crowded into a small warehouse full of double bunks—men ready to go home and sick, damaged, and elderly prisoners, no risk.
Upon checking with classification, Libby learned that as soon as my classification officer signs off on the paperwork, I’ll be an H.O.1—minimum custody, which changes many things for me. It appears that Tallahassee is reviewing files, and several men with similar time have also had their custodies reduced.
The most immediate effect is that the D.O.C. is officially stating that I am not a risk, a fact that I hope we can use with the parole commission at a new hearing, trumping corrupt prosecutor, Mark Ober’s, libelous and slanderous argument against my release. With an H.O.1 status, work camp, lower custody, even work release comes into play. I hope we can use this to our advantage.
Libby and I celebrated Christmas at the visiting park. Perhaps next year Christmas will come for me without razorwire.
Charlie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Toldyaso. I told you that Maryou are spending your last bit of time in prison. (I just know stuff) Did I not tell you that once I turned my attention to you that it would be OVER SOON?? Yes I did.
Mark Ober can't handle the scrutiny. When you come home .. you must not back down grateful to be a free man, Charlie. You must continue to fight the good fight. Promise !!!
I hear from trustworthy sources that his office and the US Attorney's office for the Middle District is being closely investigated by several agencies.
YAY! But be careful in gen. pop. Be careful.
Here's some not great news BUT also an indication that the rat bastards are running scared. They backed out of the Supreme Court covering their nuts on this one.
Settled so SCOTUS wouldn't give them an opinion stripping them of immunity. OF COURSE they shouldn't be immune. Stay tuned because there is also a case involving several issues that is BETTER news and we will see stuff like this moving towards the Supreme Court again.
SCOTUS won't issue a decision in a case questioning whether prosecutors have absolute immunity for fabricating evidence because the parties entered a $12 million settlement, according to SCOTUSBlog:
A case testing the immunity of prosecutors to damage lawsuits for obtaining and using false testimony ended in the Supreme Court Monday, with the two sides agreeing to dismiss it, without specifying reasons. The case was Pottawattamie County, et al., v. McGhee, et al. (08-1065). The Justices had heard argument in the case on Nov. 4, and were weighing a decision when the two sides moved for dismissal under the Court’s Rule 46. The press release from the respondent’s counsel describing the settlement is here.
My guess: Attorneys for the prosecutors thought they were going to lose in a big way and chose to settle rather than have SCOTUS formally strip them of immunity.
ummm hmmmm
Charlie they're out here framing people with sex offenses as young as seven. Same way they used to plant drugs, guns and FALSE WITNESSES.
They thought they found a clean hands way to do this. Send some child porn to your cell or computer (cellphone !!LOL!) and put one on the harmless list for a few years or life. BUT ... they got caught too many times ... so they started busting THOSE people .. (firemen, computer techs who planted it for them, etc...)
The next case I will post involves immunity from manufacturing EVIDENCE. Examine what it says closely.
And, like I said ... watch out for the gits. These new freaks seem to like to kill and have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Get as much exercise as possible and be ready.
A Guadalupe County attorney is not immune from a lawsuit accusing her of illegally entering a Texas woman's home and helping to remove 47 dogs and cats, the 5th Circuit ruled.
Prosecutorial immunity shields a prosecutor's role of evaluating evidence and interviewing witnesses before trial, not the detective work that forms the basis of a complaint or prosecution, the New Orleans-based appeals court noted.
County attorney Elizabeth Murray-Kolb and three other county officials took the pets from Suzanne Hoog-Watson based suspicions of animal neglect. They had also heard that Hoog-Watson moved to a mental institution - a rumor that turned out to be false. ...
The district court dismissed the federal claims, and Hoog-Watson appealed.
She argued that the county attorney's involved role in the search and removal of her pets disqualified Murray-Kolb for prosecutorial immunity. The 5th Circuit agreed, reversing dismissal of the federal claims and reviving the claims against Murray-Kolb.
Though prosecutors are immune for their role in evaluating evidence, "this is not the case, because Murray-Kolb evaluated the conditions at Hoog-Watson's property as part of the effort to assemble evidence," Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod concluded (original emphasis).
See the full opinion (pdf). The court expressed no opinion on whether the county attorney might be entitled to "qualified immunity" for her role, declaring that the issue should be argued on remand
Here's a link to the full opinion which should attract your interest.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-50077-CV0.wpd.pdf
I hope someone (libby) will print that for you and mail it post haste to you and your attorney.
Case precedent carries a great deal of weight but there's something more interesting in there which I hope you will catch.
He wants you to shut up.
Don't.
when they start the spam commenting you KNOW you are getting to people.
Post a Comment