Jim’s Books Now Available

Get Jailbreak! and see Jim's other books at Barnes and Noble. Also available at iTunes, Kobo, and Scribd.

Parole Voodoo 2010

Recently I was given a form called “OK Pardon and Parole Board Risk Instrument”. It is included at the end of this article. Though this form came from nowhere (It has no official form code, which is required on all other gov’t issue forms), and it means little or nothing toward assessing parole “risk”, (no official is bound by anything it feigns to determine,) it IS an attempt to answer complaints that the parole process is entirely subjective.

This form is given to people who are pushy, insistent and determined enough to break past several layers of bureaucratic nonsense in attempts to uncover the secret to exiting prison. Gov’t officials stave off the ignorant and gullible service-seekers by proudly proclaiming “Parole is a privilege, not a right:” Parole is a privilege only if you let them convince you of this, but parole is also a service of the executive branch of gov’t that serves as a check (and balance) upon any chicanery that the judicial branch of gov’t may perpetrate.

Now, try to tell this fact to any politician or gov’t official who is safely wedged into office, then time how quickly his eyes glaze over and his memory begins to fail. Only hundreds or thousands of voters can enhance a politician’s ability to recall the fact that he is a public servant, and then only during that narrow window of opportunity prior to re-election, because the one thing that public servants most despise after re-election is to serve the public.

The politicians’ and bureaucrats’ (pol-crats) determination to preserve their myth that this executive check on misuse and abuse of judicial power is a privilege must be met with citizens’ adamant insistence upon it being a service and a right. We pound this fact into their reality by loudly reminding our pol-crats that their judicial system is virtually exploding with abuse of power, primarily through use of emotion, rather than science or even logic, to win convictions.

Prominent examples are found in the suppressed study by professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet, who performed some much-needed quality control on our judicial system. They checked over 7,000 cases where the cops and lawcrats tried to kill people whom they had accused of crime. Among them, a minimum of 343 were uncovered to have been innocent and obviously falsely convicted, and a minimum of 23 of these innocents were murdered in official kill chambers. (“Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases”, Stanford Law Review, vol. 40, 1987.)

This study covered American lawcrat shenanigans between 1900 to 1980. Atop these we must add seven more years and the 260 persons who are DNA-proven to have been falsely convicted and completely innocent between 1987 and 2010. (This is the figure quoted by the New York Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck on CNN’s Larry King on 10-10-10.)

Other judicial system abuses abound in the popularity of the three-strikes laws, which pass out sentences of death-by-caging for many crimes that are quite minor, such as stealing a slice of pizza or a bicycle. In my own cage, an ignorant, gullible burglar was given 40 years each for two burglaries that did not cost anyone more than $300 in loss or damage. Plus, he was coerced into accepting five years for the “arson” of boiling a cup of coffee over a wad of flaming toilet paper in a cage of concrete and steel. This ‘arson’ set off a smoke alarm and did no damage aside from judicial abuse of power. “Arsons” are routinely invented by cops, the worst known example of which is the Corsicana Texas case where sleazy officials murdered Cameron Willingham for being asleep while his children played with fire.

More judicial and/or legislative abuse of power is their policies of never letting a convictee ever fully pay out his sentence. In every case, that first conviction is used as a bludgeon to obtain more convictions and heavier sentences. Once these sharks brand a citizen with any type of conviction, he becomes their cash cow for life. He is recycled through their conviction system much faster and more efficiently because of the ease with which their computers can spit a list of names from their ‘similar crimes’ bin, and the difficulty of uncovering the actual culprit from evidence that may be found at the scene.

Due to the disaster that DNA technology delivered to the lawyers’ system, we now have a tiny, minimum amount of quality control upon this edifice that formerly enjoyed almost total denial of any ‘mistakes’ or fallibility. Having proven that a minimum of seven percent of ALL death penalty convictions are of innocents (“Death Penalty; a Broken System” Columbia University study in 2000 by Prof. James Liebman.), the cop and lawcrat community can no longer deny that they abuse power and require auditing of their techniques. The emergence of these proofs are how we won the right to force the parole board to provide a reason for their denials of this service. (Another abuse is that they make it almost impossible for citizens to access caselaw advances in other states while governors- or police- associations have bureaucratic machines that notice cases that advance their causes and race to the legislators to have their cronies swiftly enact them as legislation. Citizens are forced to attack such injustices piecemeal, in slow, time consuming, expensive civil lawsuits. Phillips v. Williams, OK 60 (1978), 583 p.2d 988, 970.)

Now, thanks to Phillips, Oklahomans have the right, if they learn of it, to demand an answer from the parole board as to why we were denied this service, and, when they ignore our demand, we have the right, if we learn of it, and have the wherewithal to get past all the sneaky time limits and procedural bars, to file a mandamus asking judges to force them to provide that answer which they are required to give.

We also have the right to check their records on us for accuracy, due to the DOC’s “Mission Statement” to collect and maintain “accurate” records, and due to state law 22 OK st. ann. sec. 1514 (6). These two hard won rights are directly responsible for the promulgation of the farcical form that I present to you here. Prior to this form, their parole investigator may or may not have perused his file on you or asked you some questions, then told his superiors “yes” or “no” in a checkbox on a sheet of paper with
your name on a list. Now he has to fill out several blanks.

This exercise provides us another way to crack the door on this tightly wedged gov’t service besides the standard way, which should not be countenanced. The standard way to obtain this gov’t service is to simply buy it, same as involves any other form of political patronage or “spoils system”. To paraphrase various texts on gov’t and civics, the executive rewards persons who helped get him elected by passing out sinecures within gov’t where power and influence may be weilded in exchange for favors or riches. The executives take a cut from the business obtained by his cronies, who obtain their money from lawyers employed as bag men by supplicants.

The usual course of affairs is that the supplicants can in no way compete with their richer fellows and simply get ripped off by lawyers who keep all the cash for themselves after appearing to vend a short piece of legalese to the board. My extensive researches into this business over almost 40 years indicate that, if you have only a few hundred or a couple thousands of dollars to waste in trying to obtain this executive service, you should save your money and more profitably employ it in protesting the injustice publicly, or even in getting fat eating candy bars and potato chips.

For example, back in 1978, a not-totally dishonest lawyer could often be found who would take $500 and manage to purchase with it a single step down in custody rating from the DOC bureaucrats for his client. If a person could pay $500 each time to be transferred from a maximum prison to a medium dungeon, then a minimum prison, to community slave center, etc, he could then feel less wary about paying this lawyer the usual $5,000 fee for the larger service of a parole or time cut.

All these figures are 30 years out of date, and were surprisingly homogenous, having little to do with the magnitude of one’s conviction, and much to do with the maximum amount the lawyer community
felt its members could extort from their desperate, anguished and gullible clients and their families. Circumstances do make a difference, and today, if a not too notorious convictee can’t scrape together at least $10,000 to flush away to the lawyer or executive service systems, he may as well save that money, especially if he has not been in prison for about half of his sentence yet (10 to 15 years).

Short timers (2 to 15 years) should not bother to try to buy executive service, as they already enjoy the highest parole rate. Parole boards, it is thought, extend their largesse to short timers due to their mistaken assumption that they are less likely to provide backlash after release. Also, when backlash occurs, it is easier to excuse it as an unknown, unforeseeable, unexpected consequence. E.g, though a murderer’s recidivism rate is only 1% compared to the joyrider’s or burglar’s 40 to 50 percent rate, any backlash from a murderer is, by the emotional public’s mind, totally expected.

The judicial lawcrat community also prefers that short timer, youthful, petty criminals receive the lion’s share of leniency of all kinds because of the profitable throughput that they provide. Every
time one of these shoplifters or gumball bandits gets shoved through their system, many lawyers, judges, prosecutors, cops, social workers, jailers, secretaries, court reporters, bailiffs and other courthouse hangers-on get fat, taxpayer paid paychecks and an opportunity to reasonably request
a larger allocation for the next fiscal year. The lifers only pay off once for the lawcrats, and are then generally lost to the prison system budget.

Parole officials defy logic and science, yet pander to the emotional, often hysterical, public/media mind every time they toss out a youngster and refuse executive service to an old person savaged by decades of constant prison employee torture and harassment. His 19 recidivism rate is due to his maturity and knowledge that the lawcrats would just as soon kill him or lock him away forever as take the slightest chance that he may provide a minor speedbump to their rocketing careers as highly overpaid gov’t parasites.

Where the youngster will race back to his delinquent pals and the dope, alcohol and life of thieving and shitting on people, the old guy will simply work and hide in his home in fear of the next time that the cops decide to bash, en masse, into his home and abduct him back into prison.

As far as buying successful appeal deals from the judges, 30 years ago, if you did not have at least $25,000 to hand the bag man, be he politician, bureaucrat or lawyer, you should save your money, as anything less than this was almost certain to end in a ripoff in return for a short letter of recommendation or a few pages of worthless legalese written by the lawyer’s paralegal.

The little people can not afford to feed these sharks, and feeding them only makes it harder for everyone of the exploited classes to access executive services. Why would they do their check and balance jobs when they are surrounded by desperate crowds shoving free money at them for nothing but the suggestion that some hopeful event may possibly result? No one is keeping statistics, thus everyone vastly overestimates the utility of feeding these sharks, lacking proof that success almost never occurs. The payoff of a little person gaining the slightest utility from feeding these sharks is
far less than winning a lottery.

This said, I finally progress to the form and suggest avenues of attack. Question 3, “Current Offense Severity”, as it is written, can not be defended. Robbery is far more dangerous than any other thing on this line except if “MV” means “Manslaughter; Vehicular”. Listing “other” allows the bureaucrat to insert anything he wishes as a maximum-point offense. Sex is mentioned again as rape. Homicide is listed, absurdly, as a lowest severity offense, probably because its repeat rate is only 1%. Drug sales
and drug possession should be reversed in severity, as one points to mere use, while the other spreads drug use to others. This is just a list of confused terms trying to appear logical. The door to executive checks on other gov’t branches could be wrenched further open by forcing gov’t to provide a comprehensive severity rating to ALL actions that gov’t employees label as ‘crimes’.

Question 4, “Gender” favors women despite the fact that after age 96, the OK DOC’s own website notes a lower recidivism rate for men than women.

Question 5, “Marital Status”, favors marriage despite the fact that most convictees are dragged off to prisons and jails at far younger ages than they can responsibly become work-stable enough to marry. When the state itself stands in the way to job-security and marriage, this penalty should be waived. Also, “else” should include common law marriage. Further, 2009 is the year when cohabitation numbers surpassed married numbers, making this question discriminatory and irrelevant. A cohabitation index should be added to this question to make it even marginally fair.

Question 6, “Current Age”, generalizes a crude maturity index. Young convictees are likely to bite the boot that kicks, where older captives tend to have sense enough to lick it. This simpleton’s question should be expanded to utilize modern personality tests. We have science, and an endless supply
of bureaucrats and the taxcash to pay them overbloated salaries, pensions, perks, etc; why not put them both to work?

The currency that buys political change for those of us who were not lucky enough to have been born wealthy is not dollars, but constant, loud protest. Gov’t elites strive to cut out our voices of outrage through various tactics. They keep us separated by cutting out our right to assembly, re-
quiring permits to protest, which give them time to infiltrate us and thwart our actions through prior arrests and restrictions that only allow us to protest between fences, surrounded by heavily armed cops, far from the reason for protest. They chop off our right to Initiative Petition, by raising
the number of signatures required to put our legislation to a vote of the people. We can’t even Recall any of these scurrilous curs because of the many roadblocks that they have placed on our rights. No one in many decades has managed to use our right to Referendum, either. The gov’t and the corpor-
ate media have merged so thoroughly that it is nearly impossible to determine where one ends and the other begins. The judges have pinched off prisoner access to their rubber-stamp denial machine by running to the legislators to pass their “Prisoner Litigation Reform Act”, which makes automatic denial so extremely easy that their clerks often do it for them. Clinton stole our right to Habeas Corpus with his Accelerated Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Judges have raised filing fees and created new fees that prevent captives and poor people from affording lawsuits that attempt justice. It now costs about $355 just to have a very slim chance at succeeding at a federal civil lawsuit.

By making even the attempt to obtain justice to expensive and arduous, these lawcrats halved their work, doubled their pay and given themselves more time to service richer clients, such as merchants, corporations and foreign interests. And this is exactly what they do. So why should we waste thousands of dollars feeding these professional ripoff artists when the same will buy much more effective representation in public protest exposing these millionaire vermin for what they are? E.g, a thousand dollars to a lawyer will buy you weeks or months of false hope before you finally are told that the effort failed. For the same money, you could have mailed two and a half thousand letters to the media and politicians or other power peddlers who depend on the public’s good will to stay elected or keep their lucrative sinecures. Notice how all the newspapers and magazines are going broke?

Notice how even TV news yak-meisters complain bitterly about “bloggers”? This is because citizens are becoming too sophisticated to be fooled by these gov-puppets, merchant-shills and professional liars. Their pretense at being the “Voice of the People” has been penetrated. Intelligent people have stopped watching this barely disguised flim flammery and moved to the web, where real public discourse occurs. The leaders follow the public or they lose their lucrative leadership jobs. When our leaders lose their power to ignore us, pay lip service, distract us and mislead us, they follow us. The quickest way for citizens to get a headlock on our leaders is to found protest sites and continually pound these real problems into public knowledge. Soon as enough people expose a problem and work to fix it, the politicians begin jumping on the bandwagons to feign a fix.

Even a feigned fix is a start. It gets the door cracked open, which makes it easier to wrench open wide for the real fix. Don’t feed the sharks, feed social progress instead. Then we eat shark.