How To Free Yourself From Parole With: “EARLY SUPERVISED RELEASE”
——By Mark Clayton
High security prison – undisclosed location source: Newszines
“DO YOUR TIME … AND YOU’RE A FREE MAN”
A growing number of prison inmates released after having completed court defined sentences, have to pay the parole system monthly for years afterward. “Do your time … and you’re a free man.” That was the old saying’ in the U.S. prison system for roughly the last two-hundred years. Suggesting if you ‘do your time,’ you’ve paid your debt to society. But … what if, what was once true is not true today, if actions alone are the measure; and, as it turns out, ‘actions’ are often the exact measure courts and juries use to determine guilt, so let’s measure …
New data released by multiple states and federal sources over the last 12-months, proves that ‘old saying’ greatly wrong nowadays, with nearly five-thousand-dollars of expense, per paroled inmate, being paid during their years of parole, paid directly into the parole and prison system; even if the inmate had completed their original sentence, and displayed good behavior inside.
Inside our modern prisons, prison operators and their Parole Board partners have a cagy legal process they like to use, so that even non-violent offenders, usually called “short timers” by the other residents, because ‘short timer’ inmates arrive with a short court sentence, an average six-month to one-year sentence. The ‘short timers,’ are the same inmates who later leave prison for freedom after serving their entire sentence, but loaded down with two-year, three-year and even five and six and seven years and more of “community supervised release;” which requires released inmates to have to pay monthly sums that – depending upon the state – range from $50 to over $100 every month, collected by the parole system from each individual required, as terms of release, to attend Parole Officer meetings.
“… IN CAHOOTS WITH PAROLE SYSTEM …?”
Why would prison operators be in cahoots, in any way, with the parole board system in the matter of collecting parole oriented income? Once an inmate is released from prison by the parole board, prison authorities are no longer responsible for that inmate, and the parole board assumes responsibility. And ‘common sense’ suggests, once the prison releases an inmate, they would prefer not to see them again. Does that harken back to the “Do your time and you’re a free man” quote?
And yet, it seems a huge “gray area” exists that strongly ties prisons to the parole system, in a ‘common sense’ way that even regular citizens will understand – money, for the ‘greater good.’
Growing opinions outside the walls of the Department of Justice and State capitals and courtrooms across the USA, hold that years ago, when state and federal prison Administrators began signing contracts with profit-based, private corporations, to build and operate prisons, prison Administrators had to agree to deliver a minimum population figure for each such ‘for-profit’ prison facility. Administrators approved for increased prison populations, even while continuing to operate all existing state-run and federal-run facilities. Now, decades later, those Administrator agreements have increased in number, enough to require a growing and renewable rotation of prisoners to meet the demands of inmate population minimums in for-profit incarceration facilities; not fewer prisoners to keep, as is the taxpayer’s preference. Seems business is good in the prison industry.
And budgets are strained, or so Administrators report. Which is why it must be so easy for prison Administrators, their governmental overseers, associated judges, prosecutors, defense and other attorneys, and worst of all — even the general American public — to reach their tacitly colluded agreement that: “Well, if the person was convicted, they must be guilty; so, make them pay their incarceration cost, not us.”
What seems like a great idea, when pressured by the demands of shrinking budgets, later can come up short in the light of reason provided by public attention. Like when a ‘short timer,’ non-violent offender inmate has been certified by prison officials and parole board members to have fully transformed their felonious behaviors, to the point they are ready for release, and completed their sentence to a point of release, and completed full payment of any court-ordered restitution that may have been required, and paid all fines assessed – and is then asked to leave the prison system with five-or-more years of tight parole terms; as if the parole board can, on its own initiative, extend the original court-ordered prison sentence, and then add to it a requirement of paying monthly and even bi-monthly payments to the parole system – effectively, additional unwarranted fines.
Now add the following price paid by inmates towards his or her ‘debt to society’ — laboring hours every day of their prison sentence, performing duties assigned by either prison staff or Unicor, Inc. labor-supervisors. Unicor is a private company, owned by individuals associated with and working directly for the U.S. Department of Justice, who operate exclusive profit-making enterprises inside prisons, in cooperation with prison officials, and in a manner whereby each participating prison is enriched beyond the funds taxpayers provide.
Prisons collect fees from Unicor, their share of profits generated from labors inmates apply in their daily work schedules. In an effort to be fair with the inmates, they are paid for their laborers. Literally pennies-per-hour; and it is seems somewhat assumed, by a process of undiscussed consent nor legal standing, that those low-pay wages to inmates are justified, as they, in a ‘round about’ way, help inmates – indirectly – to pay for their own incarceration expenses. And through that ‘prison labor’ system most inmates do pay the prison, it’s true, and then some, at way over pennies-per-hour, when Unicor re-sells prison-made products and services at near full retail prices to governmental organizations and private businesses.
Nice return on investment for Unicor stockholders; and whichever prison, parole, or courtroom, or governmental officials whom are lucky enough to possibly own stock in Unicor. If you’re the sort of reader who buys investment stocks, have your broker check our Unicor stocks. Regular citizens usually cannot buy Unicor stock. It requires an “affiliate” brokerage firm with direct ties to Unicor to be approved for stock ownership.
Meanwhile, it is thought a quiet administrative coercion is applied to inmates who chose not to work for the prison or Unicor. Applied by prison guards and staff told by their bosses to enforce prison policy, which means uncooperative inmates who refuse to perform labors are put into solitary confinement. The message to all inmates is made unforgettably clear — either work for the prison itself or Unicor, Inc., in a paid employment position, where jobs start at 18-cents-to-23-cents per hour … or … be isolated in a shadowy, enclosed cage of concrete and steel for 24-hours, with lesser amounts of food and liquids, coolly terse guards monitoring every move, no human contact than steely-eyed guards, and no way to communicate behaviors of prison guards and staff that some might consider coercive.
“… Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?”
And by the way, what happen to the federal minimum wage provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)? Today, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, effective as of July 24, 2009. Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws even provide greater employee protections than federal law; nonetheless, employers must comply with or exceed both sets of laws. Yet, Unicor, Inc. and prison officials somehow are not required to comply with FLSA, even though they directly employ many thousands of inmates across the U.S. And what’s – ‘prisoner’s pay’ – got to do with “HOW TO FREE YOURSELF FROM PAROLE:”?
Think about it for a second … it’s well known by prison and parole board Administrators with access to parole reports inside the “prison industry,” that the more parolees you have with long parole terms (now averaging 4-to-5-years of parole even for ‘short timers’), odds move in favor of Administrators, when roughly fifteen-percent of parolees, even non-violent ‘short timers,’ will eventually violate their parole conditions in some simple matter, if enough parole time is applied. If left unchecked, will the result to American day-to-day society be a long and future chain of potential ‘parole violators’ who had a higher statistical potential to return to prison to work and fulfill those ‘prison population’ agreements, because of unusually long parole terms?
A legal motion document exists that cites federal law, to include examples of courtroom precedence, how established, and use of those legal examples in actual court cases which helped establish and reinforce courtroom precedence regarding “EARLY SUPERVISED RELEASE (ESR) — that is release from parole, not ‘probation.’ The ESR document is presented to the court “pro se,” which simply means presented by the person whom it represents – the parolee – presented by them to the “Clerk of Courts” in the County where they reside. Pay the filing fee. Ask for a receipt, if one isn’t offered. It is a legal motion, written and tested in hundreds of cases to render full release from ‘community supervised” parole.
There are some legal requirements each parolee must meet before they can submit their “motion for release” to the judge. Not many requirements, only four:
n first, you must be officially released from prison by parole, not probation — probation is a different kettle-of-fish – this is a parole release document;
and, you must have paid off any court-assigned fines;
and paid off any court-assigned restitution;
and been on parole for at least one full year – and that parole *requirement is non-negotiable.
*The self-discipline required by a parolee to successfully navigate their first year home after a prison stay — whether ‘short timer’ or long-time-prisoner parolee – often makes the difference between staying at home or going right back to prison.
Fulfill the above requirements to use the ESR motion. Then prepare the ‘motion’ paperwork (2 pages) by filling in your name and a few easy to add parole details. Present it to the ‘Clerk of Courts,” then await a letter from the local Judge’s office, usually two-to-three weeks later. That letter is typically official notice of ‘court ordered’ release from parole. Sometimes approval of the motion is delayed slightly, if a Judge needs more time to research the motion’s attached ‘precedents,’ or wants to privately council with a paralegal, or Appeals Court Judge or Prosecutor on the possibility that an Appeals Court process might reverse a ‘Denial’ in the matter of the legal motion for ‘early supervised release’ – a situation which could possibly embarrass the local judge publically, if not handled judiciously.
So far, if we measure by the strength of case-law precedents included within the ‘pro se’ motion, and the lack of any negative actions towards it whatsoever on the part of Appeals Court judges, confidence is high that the ERS will help responsible parolees end parole assignments that exceed one year past a completed prison sentence and full release.
Sounds too good to be true; too easy to be real; how can a piece of paper remove years of parole; why didn’t your attorney mention such a document; and how does it work? Come read an example of how it works, a recent example; in fact, an example that arrives directly from an acquaintance of mine whose brother was a parolee, and would still be a parolee (paying his monthly stipend to the parole board), if my acquaintance’s brother had not heard about and then acquired and used the ESR document.
With six years of parole still assigned to the brother, he’d paid his fine, restitution, and completed his sentence (federal conviction), and been released from prison for two years when his interest in the ESR began. With six years of parole remaining, he knew over those years, he’d pay over six-thousand-dollars to the parole board. That’s a lot of money for any struggling soul. It took only two weeks for his ESR document to free him, by court order, from mandatory ‘supervised release.’
The original author of the ESR is a man who spent a good part of his federal sentence as senior law clerk at a prison law library. He was paid 18-cents per hour for his labors inside the prison, so he put his time to good use in assisting other inmates to facilitate reduced sentences. This man’s specialty was drawing attention to judges who set aside federal “sentencing guidelines” in order to issue prison punishments greatly exceeding the ‘guidelines.’
So successful was the ESR author in reducing sentences originating from zealot judges who played funny with the ‘guidelines,” that he caught attention from then U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno, who sent an investigator out to the prison to discover how, in just a few months, the author had helped nearly fifty inmates in his facility to receive greatly reduced prison sentences, and assisted multiple other inmates to be completely released from prison early; while the average number of such sentence reductions and early prison releases combined, nationwide, was no more than a total of twenty-one for the entire previous five years.
He had a secret resource.
In his opinion, his own history well trained him to recognize and sometimes thwart court-bias and the ‘automaton’ like affect that sometimes clouds-over the minds of, otherwise, ‘well meaning’ court and law enforcement and prison related employees, whose jobs and unspoken terms-of-employment require them to fulfill the expectations of their bosses.
The author of the ESR had been the victim of, what he believes to be, “misuse of office” perpetrated by the judge who sentenced him, the prosecutor who initiated charges against the author, his own defense attorney (a court appointed defense attorney, who gave a wrong plea at a time the author, the defendant, was out of the court), and prison officials who seemed to blindly support and ignore obvious and serious abnormalities inside the court’s paperwork regarding the author’s trial.
As our ESR author traversed from courtroom conviction to formal incarceration, he had to travel, and at each step of the overall transfer, private comments were made to the future ESR author, by guards and prison-transfer Administrators, about the unusual nature of the conviction itself (no evidence whatsoever) and double surprise at the extremely long sentence rendered by the Judge-in-question.
Even general public opinion discriminates privately, in quiet assumptive agreement, against almost anyone charged with a crime by ‘agents-of-the-court;’ they in unison assuming some measure of guilt must apply, or no official charges would have been produced. In such a result, he public and justice system agents silently, tacitly, agree (through behavior and deeds, not words, each motivated by the ‘greater good’), to activities that some believe disenfranchise citizens from their civil rights; as easily as Administrators may be do the same to a growing mass of prisoners ready to reach parole soon – well over two-million prisoners nationwide and still growing; when a little past ten years ago prison populations were less than half that amount.
Tacit, never spoken, but understood, agreement by justice Administrators, who quietly, and with authority, influence guards and staff, as they prey their minds upon new parolees, possibly as future financing, knowing some are weakened by incarceration and vulnerable and ‘easy targets’ for accepting unusually long parole terms for the return of that sweet taste of freedom from imprisonment – while Administrators describe to citizens and politicians the challenges of their office and about the ‘greater good,’ and the positive effects of their inmate-labor campaigns.
Been keeping tally on the: “…if actions alone are the measure …” quote, from our first paragraph above, for determining for yourself the possibility whether prison and parole Administrators serve taxpayers or politicians? Will any prison-industry specialist agree we crossed a governmental budgetary threshold of fiscal responsibility, where the costs, left in the hands of bureaucrats, inflate artificially. It’s suspicious to some people. It suggests there is no one to ‘marshal in the marshals,’ so to speak. With so little oversight, it is little wonder undue influence attaches itself to certain personalities then filters down. In practice, prison and parole operators always want to run their own show.
For more information on the “EARLY SUPERVISED RELEASE” document – CLICK HERE