Yet another recent decision holding the same thing follows:

-------------------------------

New York Miscellaneous Court

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[*1]
Matter of Abelson v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.
2008 NY Slip Op 50028(U)
Decided on January 5, 2008
Supreme Court, Queens County
Golia, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.



Decided on January 5, 2008

Supreme Court, Queens County



In the Matter of Ian Abelson, Plaintiff,

against

New York State Department of Correctional Services, Defendants.




22466/07

James J. Golia, J.
The Petition

Petitioner commenced this Article 78 proceeding requesting that the Court vacate the five year post-release supervision ("PRS") period added to his sentence by the respondent. Petitioner argues that the neither the sentencing minutes nor the Sentencing and Commitment Order include, as part of petitioner's sentence, a five year PRS term and therefore respondent's administrative imposition of the five year PRS sentence is invalid.

Respondent argues 1) that the petition should be dismissed on the grounds that: a) this court lacks jurisdiction to modify a order previously prepared and issued by another judge; b) the statute of limitations (CPLR 217) has run; and c) the petition fails to name the district attorney as a necessary party to this proceeding. 2) that PRS is required by Penal Law §70.45 and is an automatic provision which does not give respondent discretion in its enforcement; and 3) that the relief requested by the petitioner requires relitigation of a criminal matter and should be barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

Background

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of Second Degree Robbery and Attempted Grand Larceny in the 2nd degree. On October 24, 2002, Judge Herbert Altman sentenced the petitioner to two five-year determinate terms of incarceration for the robbery conviction and a three to six year term on the attempted grand larceny conviction. [*2]

Notwithstanding Judge Altman's sentence as set forth in the sentencing minutes of October 22, 2002, in the preparation of the Sentence and Commitment Order dated November 4, 2002, the sentence for the attempted grand larceny conviction was set forth as a two and a third to seven year sentence. Petitioner brought a motion pursuant to CPL §440.20 alleging, among other things, that Judge Altman's sentence on the grand larceny conviction was illegal and had to be corrected. Judge M. Wiley, deciding the motion due to Judge Altman's retirement, granted petitioner's motion to the extent that the sentence for the grand larceny conviction was corrected and petitioner was resentenced to a two and a third to seven year term instead of the three to six year term imposed by Judge Altman. The remainder of the sentence imposed by Judge Altman remained unchanged and a new Sentence and Commitment Order was issued, dated March 14, 2005.

Subsequent to the sentencing, an "Inmate Information" sheet was prepared by the Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS")stating that the petitioner was subject to post-release supervision for five years. It is imposition of the PRS, by DOCS, that is the subject of this petition.

The petitioner was released from prison in January 2007 and currently resides in Queens. In accordance with the requirements of the PRS, petitioner reports to the parole board in Jamaica.

Analysis

Respondent's arguments that the petition should be dismissed on the grounds: a) that this court lacks jurisdiction to modify an order previously prepared and issued by another judge; b) that the petition fails to name the district attorney as a necessary party to this proceeding; and c) that the relief requested is barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel are all without merit. Petitioner is not seeking to 1) modify a court order; 2)vacate a criminal sentence; or 3) relitigate a criminal matter, instead, petitioner is seeking a judicial review of an administrative act of the respondent. Where an individual is faced with an administratively imposed sentence there is no remedy to require the administrative body to review its determination other than an action seeking judicial review of the determination i.e. an article 78 proceeding. (Waters v Dennison, 2006 NY Slip Op 26448, 13 Misc 3d 1105 [2006].)

Respondent's argument that Petitioner is barred by the statute of limitations is also without merit as there is nothing in the record, other than respondent's conclusory statement, to support a finding that petitioner was aware of the PRS since 2002.

We turn now to petitioner's claim that the imposition of PRS, by DOCS, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.45 is invalid.

The imposition of post-release supervision by DOCS where the sentencing minutes and Sentencing and Commitment Order are silent on that issue has been the subject of a considerable amount of litigation throughout the State.Although the issue has not been resolved consistently across the judicial departments, the Second Department has been guided by the decision in Earley [*3]v. Murray, 462 F. 3d 147 (2006), where the court stated that "PRS added administratively by DOCS and not imposed by a court is a nullity' and thus must be vacated."

Although not bound by the Earley decision, the courts have relied on it as a useful and persuasive authority (See, Matter of Sapp v Payant, 2007 NY Slip OP 51903U [2007] and Matter of Waters v Dennison, 13 Misc 3d 1105 [2006]) and have consistently ruled that where the sentencing minutes and order of commitment fail to include any mention of PRS the administratively imposed PRS is not part of the sentence. (People v Noble, 37 AD3d 622 [2nd Dept. 2007], People v Wilson, 37 AD3d 855 [2nd Dept 2007]; People v Smith, 37 AD3d 499 [2nd Dept 2007]). (See also, Murray v. Goord, 1 NY3d 29 [Sept 2003] where the court held "prison officials are conclusively bound by the contents of the commitment paper accompanying a prisoner.")

Since it is undisputed that the sentencing and commitment order did not include any PRS provisions, this court finds the imposition of PRS by the respondent a nullity.

Respondent argues that the controlling cases on this issue are People v Catu, (4 NY3d 242, 825 NE2d 1081, 792 NYS2d 887 [2005] where the court held that PRS is a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect) and People v Louree (2007 NY Slip OP 4679, 8 NY3d 541, 869 NE2d 18, 838 NYS2d 18, where the court held that post-release supervision is a direct consequence of a criminal conviction.) In each of these cases the defendants' guilty pleas were vacated due to the failure of the trial court to advise the defendants, prior to their respective pleas, that post release supervision would be part of their sentence. Because the defendants were unaware of the PRS, the Court found that they did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently enter their pleas.

Respondent's reliance on these cases is misplaced as the issue here is not whether PRS is automatic or a direct consequence of criminal conviction, but whether PRS can be administratively added to a criminal sentence ordered by a judge. With respect to the latter, the answer is no. (Murray v. Goord, 1 NY3d 29 [Sept 2003]; People v Noble, 37 AD3d 622 [2nd Dept. 2007], People v Wilson, 37 AD3d 855 [2nd Dept 2007]; People v Smith, 37 AD3d 499 [2nd Dept 2007]); Matter of Sapp v Payant, 2007 NY Slip Op 51903U)

Accordingly, the petition is granted and the five year post- release supervision sentence administratively imposed on petitioner by respondent is vacated.

This is the order of the Court.

Dated: January 5, 2008

People ex rel. SIDNEY BURCH v Goord
2008 NY Slip Op 01445
Decided on February 20, 2008
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 20, 2008

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK


Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

257 KAH 07-01086


[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. SIDNEY BURCH, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

GLENN S. GOORD, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered January 15, 2007 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.


WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, ATTICA (NORMAN P. EFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (EMIL J. BOVE, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the writ of habeas corpus is sustained, and


It is further ORDERED that respondent is directed to discharge petitioner from custody forthwith.
Memorandum: On September 7, 2004, petitioner admitted to violating the terms of a sentence of probation imposed in Supreme Court, Bronx County, upon his conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree. He was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of two years, but the court did not impose a period of postrelease supervision. During petitioner's term of imprisonment, respondent, New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), added a three-year period of postrelease supervision to petitioner's sentence. Petitioner was released from prison in May 2005, but in July 2005 he was declared delinquent by the Division of Parole and was returned to DOCS, where he remains imprisoned.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was being illegally detained beyond the maximum two-year term of imprisonment imposed by the court. In denying the petition, Supreme Court relied in part on our decisions in People v Hollenbach (307 AD2d 776, lv denied 100 NY2d 642) and People v Crump (302 AD2d 901, lv denied 100 NY2d 537). We reverse, however, because we agree with the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that, in the event that a court does not impose a period of postrelease supervision as part of a defendant's sentence, the sentence has no postrelease supervision component (Earley v Murray, 451 F3d 71, 76, reh denied 462 F3d 147; see People ex rel. [*2]Gerard [Colarusso] v Kralik, 44 AD3d 804, 804-805; People v Martinez, 40 AD3d 1012; see generally Hill v United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 US 460, 464). As the Court of Appeals has stated, postrelease supervision is a "direct consequence of a criminal conviction" (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244; see People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 545), and we conclude that it therefore must be expressly imposed by the court (see Earley, 451 F3d at 76). To the extent that our prior decisions in Hollenbach and Crump hold otherwise, they are no longer to be followed (see People ex rel. Eaddy v Goord, ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 20, 2008]).
Entered: February 20, 2008
JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court

************************************************** ***

People ex rel. WILLIAM EADDY v Goord
2008 NY Slip Op 01446
Decided on February 20, 2008
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 20, 2008

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK


Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

263 KAH 07-00240


[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. WILLIAM EADDY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

GLENN S. GOORD, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered December 5, 2006 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.


WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, ATTICA (NORMAN P. EFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (EMIL J. BOVE, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the habeas corpus proceeding is converted to a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition, the petition is granted, and judgment is granted in favor of petitioner as follows:


It is ADJUDGED that respondent is prohibited from adding a period of postrelease supervision to petitioner's sentence of imprisonment.
Memorandum: On July 5, 2001, petitioner was sentenced in Supreme Court, Queens County, to a determinate term of imprisonment of six years upon his conviction of rape in the first degree. The court did not impose a period of postrelease supervision. During petitioner's imprisonment, respondent, New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), added a five-year period of postrelease supervision to petitioner's sentence of imprisonment. At the time of his release from imprisonment in December 2005, petitioner refused to sign a form indicating that he would adhere to the terms of postrelease supervision, and he was returned to DOCS in May 2006 following his arrest for violating those terms. Petitioner then commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was being illegally detained beyond the six-year term of imprisonment imposed by the court. Here, as in People ex rel. Burch v Goord (___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 20, 2008]), the court relied in part on our decisions in People v Hollenbach (307 AD2d 776, lv denied 100 NY2d 642) and People v Crump (302 AD2d 901, lv denied 100 NY2d 537) in denying the petition. Petitioner has subsequently been released to the Division of Parole until December 2010.

We note at the outset that a writ of habeas corpus is no longer available to petitioner inasmuch as he has been released on parole (see People ex rel. Murray v Bartlett, 89 NY2d [*2]1002). Nevertheless, we convert this proceeding to one pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, and we consider the merits of the appeal (see CPLR 103 [c]; People ex rel. McBride v Alexander, 46 AD3d 849; see generally People ex rel. Brown v New York State Div. of Parole, 70 NY2d 391, 398).

For the same reasons set forth in our decision in Burch, we reverse the judgment herein. We again note that, to the extent that our prior decisions in Hollenbach and Crump hold otherwise, they are no longer to be followed.
Entered: February 20, 2008
JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court

ASE:

You plead: "DSO [sic] NOT take a parole board to court unless you wan [sic] to max out."

I just posted five (5) very recent appellate court decisions from four (4) different New York appellate courts. Please read them carefully. If you do, you will see that both state parole AND corrections can be beat ... WITHOUT the inmates maxing out. To be sure, each and every one was ordered RELEASED from prison!!!! And that's just five recent cases. I could easily post at least 10 more very recent cases against NY parole and corrections holding essentially the same thing: ordering RELEASED the inmate petitioners.

And beating both corrections and parole regularly is not germaine to the State of New York alone, I assure you. If I cared to spend the money to retrieve cases from various other states, I could easily post here not less than 50 recent appellate court decisions from all over the country ordering inmates released after challenging illegal parole-related matters by filing suit against state governors, state parole officials, and/or state corrections officials.

I do NOT speak of what I do not know. Instead, when I do speak, you and every other member here can rest assured that I am very well learned on the subject matter. My livelihood is the criminal law paralegal work I do. A good percentage of my work is for attorneys -- several of which are former judges -- from all over the United States, who hire me to do their research, pleadings and legal arguments. I am very good at what I do, I assure you.

I would never encourage any inmate to take legal action if I believed that doing so would prove injurious to them in any way. Conversely, I will always encourage an inmate to take legal action if law shows doing so would likely be to their advantage.

The PA case at issue evidences an arbitrary and capricious decision of the governor AND the Board of Probation & Parole -- one that is unquestionably illegal. Litigated properly, and if decided on law, it would likely prevail. The PA courts are not nearly politically influenced or corrupt as those of other states. In fact, the PA courts are comparatively liberal when it comes to criminal justice system matters, as juxtaposed to most other states.

You offer your claimed friend's case in TX as reason NOT to file suit. TX could be likened to a third world country when it comes to criminal justice matters (although I do have to interject that the TX appellate courts have at least seriously entertained novel arguments presented on behalf of a woman who's serving life upon a conviction for murdering her abusive husband; a very high profile case I'm involved in). Most other states have evolved beyond frontier justice, thankfully.

And your profile indicates ties to both CO and NH. As a professional with more than 20 years experience in post-conviction criminal work all over the United States, those two states, in my opinion, rank wiothin the top 25 percentile of states in which a convicted criminal can obtain relief based on controlling law.

That you have, or know of someone else, who has been denied justice on an appellate level, or who has been retaliated against within the prison system for having challenged illegal actions of government agents, should not be offered to deter someone else from a different jurisdiction from pursuing the justice due them. And with all due respect, I submit that your attempt at doing so suggests a propensity toward promoting the very same injustices of which you complain. Indeed, the citizen who advocates laying down to let the system run over victims of the criminal justice system, is just as guilty of promoting miscarriages of justice as the actors occasioning such.

This post will conclude my contributions to this thread. I have not the time to waste leading horses to water they will not drink. I've here donated, free of charge, both valuable time and a very expensive education, to break down into layman's terms the fundamental principles of applicable law for the benefit of other members -- for the benefit of all members who have a loved one imprisoned in PA who could conceivably benefit greatly from my knowledge and expertise. I've given to all viewers here the arguments that would likely result in their loved ones being released soon. I've fulfilled my societal duty to help remedy a wrong. What any of this thread's viewers do with that accurate information is their decision, and their's alone.

FINAL INTERJECTION: Had it not been for the cojones of a drifter by the name of Clarence Earl Gideon ... an inmate not afraid of suffering consequence behind challenging before a court what he perceived to be illegal action taken by upper echelon government, those accused of crimes who cannot afford lawyers, would not have legal counsel appointed today. See, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

Prison Litigator . did substantial time in TDC for every case any one can cite .I can site hundreds who lost and faced retaliation . I want to make it very clear my friend did not take part in th Sirak suit .

The Courts in NY are much more liberal than the rest of the nation as are the federal district and appeals court in NY . Yes NH and CO do have what could be called a some what fair system .

Every court has held parole is a privilege not a right and there is not a liberty interest . There was a large class action case that lost not once but twice regarding TX and their BPP Guess what the named class members will never get paroled BPP will set them off and give them serve alls . All because they took the state to court were they right some some just did not want to do what TDC asked of them . Some were/ are trouble makers who continually caught and catch major cases .
A parole board can if it wants say no for any reason it damn well pleases . .Some are more transparent than others creating less of a problem .
My friend did not take part in the law suit for the reasons I stated . She knows she will max out and face retaliation from TDC if she takes them to court . I know TDC will retaliate they are very good at it I saw it . If TDC retaliates it makes sense that other states will do the same or like NH in a case involving school funding simply ignored the court ! Who is going to stop them the cops?

Are there things worth fighting for you bet .Parole is just not a battle that is going to be won in the US with the attitudes the overall population has it is political suicide to even suggest relaxing parole .
As I stated parole is not a right it is a earned privilege . .Should parole boards release those who have earned that privilege yes do the no it is just not a safe thing to do if some one wants to keep their jobs or move on any where in life letting “criminals “ free is not a things people think highly of.. I recall the news showing the infamous Willie Horton ads to discredited Michale Dukakis it worked . Now Parole boards are much more reluctant to grant parole
TX is hardly unique OK and all the Gulf coast states have very similar systems all have been sued over parole all plaintiffs lost all faced retaliation many maxed out .regardless if they win or lose if your name is on that suit you are going to be in for a real tough time and could even risk getting killed
You do not make a person who can determine your freedom and if you get released early or you max out mad at you they have tremendous power over you with little if any accountability . In this case you take what they dish out . Ever seem what a person looks like after bosses “have some fun” As in beat them with in inches of their life . That is what you get . Not any fix . Lets face it few give a rats butt about prisoners and could care less if bosses beat them or lock them in small cages 23 hours a day .
These matters are better handled on discharge when it is less likely you will face retaliation . I filed a simple grievance over a abusive boss . I got put in ad seg after getting hit kicked and O/C sprayed for no reason I did not put up a fight . I never filed a grievance after that learned my lesson the bosses can do anything they want . In the end you do not make those who have power over you with zero accountability mad .

Again My friend did not take part in the suite because she knows win or lose she will get the max set off then a serve all and max out as well as face harsh retaliation from TDC .She is could make it this time in review why risk that? I am sure it goes on elsewhere .

Why make PA mad and they in turn will make this a permanent thing in a legislative session . That is all you accomplish

OH you did not tell us what happened to those who won their suits . My guess is they did face retaliation or ended up back in prison ? We should know that too to be fair yes they won in court did they win in life ?

Until there is a drastic change in the attitude of most of the US. Prisoners are going to be mistreared and face retaliation if they complain about it

__________________
If the storm doesn't kill me
the government will

REM

When I was in TDC I met a guy who thought he was only going ot do 5 years because it was his first offense and he did not have priors .The judge said 10 years with parole in 5 well BBP said not so fast and set him off for 2 years . he went to court Lost in TX courts .Lost in the 5 th federal cricut court . All courts said he does not have a liberty interest and the BPP has TOTAL Discretion over any decision . Because you are sentenced to a period of time you do not have a liberty interest unless it is a plea agreement then you have slightly more . Yes he got to "have fun" with bosses too . He is now permanently injured and there is zero recourse .Those in Gray simply say he starteda fight wit tem and win who is going ot t be belived a ex con or a boss .
Because he took BPP to Court he maxed out on a serve all .They Used the time worn excuse nature of offense .

Lesson do not mess with parole boards and those who control them unless you want to max out and face brutal retaliation from bosses

The way to change is Closer to what X Ray said via letters that can lead to new legislation and talking to law makers . Not taking a powerful unaccountable agency board whatever it is called to court when they can say ok you took us to court now your gonna max out for it and the bosses are gonna take" good care" of you for "acting out "
Think word is not put out to give you a tune up for taking them to court??? LMAO they sure do . All the boss has to say is you swung at him / her and you automatically lose

That is the reality of how the system deals with those who stand up against it . Who ya gona call 911 ?

__________________
If the storm doesn't kill me
the government will

REM

I fully understand this, but you only "fuel" the fires more if you are silent. Is it not best to die trying than like a dog cowering in silence? If you do not pave the way and make changes for self, then maybe others that will come after? Like the saying....."sometimes the bigger they are the harder they fall"......no matter their position or standing in life.
My belief is focusing on what you want, and take actions to bring about those changes, not concentrating on what you do not want.

__________________
When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.

In a a more idealistic society that does not exist anywhere . Yes we would be able to go to a court to settle our differences that is what thy in part exist for . And when all was said and done we wold shake hands and respect the verdict of the court along with complying fully with them .

In the real world it does not work that way . In the real world when there is a group of people who have near total power over you are both not accountable and the public is not very concerned about what that group does to those it has total power over . you simply do not make them mad except as a last resort . The reason this abuse goes on in prisons is simple it is tolerated and those who perpetrate it are not held accountable .Prisoners know this and quickly learn how to get around the system .
Retaliation is very effective in this environment that is a set up for abuse unaccountable people in authority over a despised group of people .

There other safer ways though slower at times to effect change . Talking to law makers getting involved with reputable organizations , X Ray is right when a law maker gets a good number of letters regarding a matter .they begin to think they have a problem on their hands . This is a written letter not a email or on line petition they simply ignore and delete them .
Why else does in TX Senator Whitmire ( he gets on average 300 letters a month about parole ) routinely call the Chair of the parole board Rissi Owens to the mat and force her to make changes ? Yes sew is very slow to respond but eventually after enough letters calls and hearings something will get done and it will be law maybe not right away but some things take time
Those who took TX BPP to court did not think of the other offenders in TDC who knew just what BPP was gong to to in return give out more set offs and serve alls to show who exactly is in power . Of course it did not help that they took it to in a very conservative court staked with Reagan , GH Bush a W appointees who are not going to do a damn thing for prisoners. Sirak if he is a good attorney should have known he was going to lose before he ever set out. H e did how ever take $ 400 from 900 or so offenders families

What is working better a lost cause lawsuit and 400 tossed away or a few hours of your time and a few dollars for a certified letter? Yes it will take a while but eventfully TX parole will change .

Some will after discharging their sentence take them to court as statue of limitations on Civil Rights does not run out that is a possibility but when you are under their control you have little recourse unless you want to end up like the guy is saw . Beaten to a pulp and now disabled .With zero recourse . I even testified as did others who saw the attack funny thing the bosses all committed perjury and got away with it . OH he lost the suit . That is result I do not want . Those in power to with impunity both commit perjury and nearly kill some one because they had to show Us who really was in power

No one is saying do nothing . I am saying do something but tread very lightly and be very careful think about what you do and what are the real world results not what would happen in Ideal Land

I saw the real results of taking a DOC or parole board to court . It was not pretty . I do look at what want to see happen but I also think what will happen if.... I think what are all the possible outcomes . and is this the best way to get there not doing so is asking for disaster . If you know that even if you win you lose why are you going to take that course of action

We are talking about prisoners not exactly a well liked group that most society cares about .

No one issaying be silent. I am saying soemtimnes you ad more fuel to the fire and end up with something far worse than ypu ever dreamed of .I can see PA if it gets sued simply passing law ending parole to fix those prisoners who dared stand up against them . That is the likely result of a law suit in the current atmosphere where since 9/11cops are "heros" and offenders are the equivalent of Bin Ladin

There is more than one way to create change

__________________
If the storm doesn't kill me
the government will

REM

__________________

I am doing something simply by relating the abuses I saw . The retaliation for a simple infraction or complaint against boss or even the mail room.
I am doing something by suggesting ways to help prevent it . Sometimes you have to be quite and bide your time until it is safer to speak out .You are not able to do much if any good if you are severely traumatized , maybe dead or unable to do much .
Retaliation comes in many forms often both violence by bosses and abuses by those in power , together both can leave a person devastated and hopeless .
Retaliation is effective in the prison environment because no one cares .

__________________
If the storm doesn't kill me
the government will

REM

Well, I called the Governor's office on Friday and they said they are starting to release the non violent offenders. Does anyone know if PA looks at arson as a violent crime? I have searched online and can't seem to find the answer. No on was hurt in the fire.

__________________
~~~IF THE EYES HAD NO TEARS THE SOUL WOULD HAVE NO RAINBOW~~~