Thursday, April 21, 2011

CIA tactics now mainstream in Downtown USA?

Police use informants to sell heroin, cocaine, and other drugs on the street. The going rate is the informant gets to keep half of the taxpayer supplied drug buy money, or half the drugs. The targets are non-Organized Crime connected small business owners, home owners, and anyone with assets and cash to confiscate through a rigged, revenue collection court system. Informants are used to set up targets, usually "Big Mouths", for false arrests and prison. Look for a lawyer to sue police, try to remove a judge, etc, Be placed on the Arrest on Sight, Homeland Security Fusion Center, list, such as in the State of Connecticut.

Killing and beating up citizens is now the norm. CIA tactics from the 1950's South America are now global CIA. See bottom video.

CIA Whistleblower talks about Heart Attack gun

Text with video:

Uploaded by on Dec 27, 2008

CIA whistleblower talks about a gun that shoots a frozen dart of poison that mimicks a heart attack in the unfortunate victim.

Go find out for yourself how many witnesses died of heart attacks in cases involving the US government. Start off with the JFK assassination.


CIA 1950's blueprint for everybody's abuse today

* * * *

I was to work with two politically active Connecticut citizens with damaging inside information. Both, apparently died of natural causes in the last two weeks. In their cases, I do think it was just a coincidence. [That story]

stevengerickson At yahoo Dot Com

Post Office Box Eight Seventy Four
Brattleboro, Vermont 05302


Second Set of Standards/Laws for Police, Judges, Officials

I received the below video as a link. I decided to post it. The subject is of how a felony conviction cripples average people, but not the officially connected who have "worked" for taxpayer dollars. Former Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland took bribes from organized crime figures to kidnap as many children as possible away from Connecticut Families, so he would get freebies and bribes, and organized crime figures could build, maintain, supply, and run facilities such as "Kiddie Max" prisons for kids. Rowland most likely got a year in prison, 10 months to serve because he upset the applecart of the Connecticut Judicial Mafia of Lawyers and Judges, having a power pissing contest, interrupting their power and revenue stream, not because he flagrantly broke laws daily.

After doing time as a felon, "Johnny", as he is know to both US Presidents Bush, whined about not having money, gets out of prison buys a mansion, gets all sorts of speaking engagements, get hired as consultant in the uber corrupt official Waterbury, Connecticut, getting paid a salary of $95,000 a year where he may, or may not, even have to show up, or do any work. Crime does pay for dirtbag government insiders.

As Governor M. Jodi Rell was probably as big a dirtbag as Rowland. [story]

In the State of Connecticut if you contact elected officials about a remedy to Police Brutality, Judicial Misconduct, Public Corruption, lodge an official complaint, or wish to sue police or members of the court, remove a judge, or anger somebody officially important you, the average citizen are a target for job loss, loss of credit, credibility, your home, for break up of your family, loss of your friends, to end up in prison, devastated for life. [This] is my story.

2 of the biggest thorns in Official Connecticut's side, because of the knowledge of where the bodies are buried, are dead in the last 2 weeks. [story]

Without further adieu, the video ...


Text with video:

Uploaded by on Apr 19, 2011


* * * *

Reasons to Audit the Federal Reserve, The Fed, and why Max Keiser says bankers should be hung from the nearest tree:

* * * *
* * * *

This blogger's email:
stevengerickson AT yahoo Dot Com


Sunday, April 17, 2011

Court Scams and Divorce

The Judge/Lawyer/Police Organized Crime Syndicate will falsely arrest and imprison citizens who expose their fraud to others: who lodge complaints, or just get "mouthy". Such is the case with Michael Nowacki. Some explosive raw video below, yes, it is 2 hours, but the video has enough content that it should get national attention. Most states are following the citizen abuse trends of Connecticut.

Text with below video:
Uploaded by frankknee on Apr 13, 2011

FIRST UP: Ed & Leslie discuss in an impromptu manner the frauds that go on in Divorce Court which destroy children and hands much of the estate over to the lawyers and System. The Conn. Bar Association is accused of secretly funding the particularily destructive GAL system, or Guardian Ad Litem. A conspiracy exist, mind you showing a definite Appearance of Impropriety, where rogue judges, corrupt lawyers, and even the Bar Associations themselves scheme to rape the family assets with unnecessary actions that cost familes against their wills, and rip children apart between both parents.

SECOND UP: at 36 mins.... Citizen Michael Nowacki is exposing how the Conn. Judicial Branch has been illegally engaging law-making practices:

On March 18, 2011, the Connecticut Ethics Commission undertook investigation into Chief Family Judge Lynda Munro's alleged unlawful solicitation for "sponsorship" from members of the Connecticut Bar Association for mandated family court directed training for Guardian Ad Litem G.A.L.s held at Quinnipiac University. They dismissed it.

Audience is asked to respond to as to whether Munro's solicitation of Bar funding for the GAL Program constitutes "making law from her secretive back chambers accountable by some state enforcement agency?

The FOIA Commission claims it has no jurisdiction, not an Administrative Issue as defined by Conn. Supreme Court. (1:06:00 & 1:41:00) The hearing officer was referring to the 2006 decision, Clerk of GA 7 v. FOIC. That decision expanded the definition of "adjudicative" records to include simple docket sheet data not subject to FOIA.

Clerk has nothing to do with the Nowacki case because Nowacki is not asking for anything to do with an individual case and privacy issues. He's asking for information on Public Hearings. The Law Tribune writes : "Three of the seven justices in Clerk favored test based on the 1988 case of Bar Examining Commission v. FOIC. Notes: Quinn: March 3, 2008: We do believe that administrative function should be defined as including the management of the internal institutional machinery of the court system, accounting, budgeting, personnel, facilities, physical operations, scheduling, record keeping, and docketing."

In the 1983 case of Rules Committee v. FOIC, Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters noted that the state FOI Act applies only to the Judicial Branch "administrative records" and not to "adjudicative records" that might interfere with the courts' critical function of deciding individual cases. Peters narrowly defined "administrative" matters as the "budget, personnel, facilities and physical operations of the courts."

At the very least, it can be claimed Nowacki's failed FOIA to J. Munro and others about the GAL program and rule-making procedure was discovering the following: to know about records dealing with GAL budget or sponsorship, GAL personnel and even trainees, facilities at Quinnipiac and physical operations of the courts concerning the GAL. AMC "commando programs". After all, those Public Agency programs are physical operations that accommodate the efficient operations of the court, are administrative; and Nowacki is not seeking "adjudicative records" that might interfere with deciding any individual case.

Rules Committee v. FOIC is not so narrow that it limits the breadth of which administrative functions can still be carried out despite Clerk, thus is still under FOIA juris and oversight.

The hearing officer, Mr. Perpetua, @ 1:51:30 is wrong to have gone to such a narrow definition when "internal machinery" is the mantra, and when Nowacki points out the Superior Court and Appellate Court acknowledges their rule-making falls as an administrative act. Administrative function should be defined as including the management of the internal institutional machinery of the court system, which must include activity related to Rule-making. Judge Lynda B. Munro spearheaded a program aimed at influencing private law firms' hiring and employment practices. This is highly controversial behavior showing impropriety and warranting investigation of a conflict of interest, ethics, and even criminal allegations.

When a judge creates and manages, schedules,and coordinates a program like the GAL (Guardian Ad Litem) or AMC (Atty for the Minor Child) training sessions, a program under great social controversy whether or not it's actually destructive to families, promoted independently by this J. Munro, ... is that or is that not an Administrative function subject to FOIA Commission jurisdiction?

Use YouTube LIKES Vote for YES
Use DISLIKES Vote below for NO

Citizen Reporter

Michael Nowacki
(203) 273-4296 (cell)

Connecticut Divorce Court Reform Demanded by Citizens 2011Reel 1

* * * *

This blogger's complaint with the State of Connecticut, Police Brutality, and Judicial Misconduct:


Friday, April 15, 2011

CIA Psy-Ops

Text with below video:

Uploaded by on Apr 14, 2011

Are the methods the US is using, namely technically training activists in the Middle East, underminding the sovereignty of the countries there? Who is behind the Soros Foundation, Twitter and Facebook? Who is making up the flash mobs, allegedly organized in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, where the Internet connection has been shut since the riots broke out? Wayne Madsen, investigative journalist, is sharing his opinion with RT on the issue.

Madsen: Social networks are linked to CIA

* * * *


Thursday, April 14, 2011

9-11 Judge Shopping Fiasco

I posted the below comment [here]

Bush's judge cousin is a cop killer
Federal Judge John M. Walker ran down a New Haven Connecticut cop. Walker wasn't arrested and was not drug or alcohol tested. Killing cops is okay for judges, especially if they're related to Bush.

The cop was blamed for not being orange enough, didn't get the standard cop fallen on duty funeral, and the story got little press.

Bush's judge cousin is a cop killer [story]


Bush cousin presides over 9/11 suit against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers

* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for:

CIA’s Obama, Libya, Depleted Uranium, and the Family Farmer


This blogger's email:
stevengerickson AT Yahoo Dot Com

Monday, April 11, 2011

Rell deposed in suit against Hartford police

[Source of re-posted piece below, Stamford Advocate]

Published 10:10 p.m., Thursday, April 7, 2011

Just-retired Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell may soon make a court appearance in Bridgeport -- sort of.

In what observers call a rarity in Connecticut politics, attorneys representing activist and journalist Ken Krayeske, arrested at the ex-governor's 2007 inaugural parade, deposed Rell in March as part of his civil rights lawsuit against the arresting Hartford officer.

They plan to present the videotaped footage of her answering questions about what she witnessed as evidence during the trial, scheduled to begin in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport Wednesday.

"It is generally rare and the law is designed to keep it rare," said Perry Zinn-Rowthorn, the associate attorney general assigned to represent Rell at the time of the deposition.

Krayeske said he was working as a freelance journalist, trying to take photos of Rell in January 2007 when a police officer assigned to the governor's security detail recognized him from a list of potential threats. The detective saw Krayeske -- who was carrying camera equipment at the time -- bike up to the parade route, dismount and run in front of the governor. He was charged with breach of peace and interfering with a police and held on a $75,000 bond until after that evening's inaugural ball.

His arrest set off a firestorm, with critics concerned about the existence of a political watch list and others arguing the police simply did their job protecting a public official from a perceived threat.

A Hartford Superior Court judge dismissed the charges that March. Krayeske subsequently filed his lawsuit for false arrest, unreasonable bond and denial of his rights to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and due process.

Last fall Krayeske's attorneys -- Brown & Welsh P.C., where Krayeske practices commercial law -- made a motion to depose Rell to learn what she observed during the parade and whether she felt threatened.

"We filed in opposition on the governor's behalf ... to prevent her being exposed unnecessarily to inconvenience or distraction," Zinn-Rowthorn said. "The law generally provides governors and other high executive government officials should not be subjected to unnecessary discovery and really only deposed where their testimony is critical to a case."

The court allowed the Krayeske team to submit a limited number of questions about what Rell saw along the parade route for a videotaped deposition of the governor in March, about two months after she left office.

"She sat in a court reporter's office in Florida and read the questions and provided her answers," Zinn-Rowthorn said, adding: "At this point we have no role (in the trial). It's up to the parties who remain to argue whether this testimony is admissible."

Houston Putnam Lowry, one of Krayeske's lawyers, believes Rell's testimony will help his client.

"The police have claimed that Ken Krayeske charged the governor," Putnam Lowry said. "Her testimony is, 'I didn't see much and certainly wasn't concerned about my safety.' "

Attorneys representing the Hartford office and city did not return calls seeking comment.

A handful of lawyers, political staffers and educators contacted by Hearst Connecticut Newspapers could only anecdotally recall two other court appearances by governors over the past 30 years -- Republican John Rowland for a matter related to a nursing home strike and Democrat Ella Grasso for an election dispute.

Rell could not be reached for comment.

Staff Writer Brian Lockhart can be reached at

* * * *

This blogger's email": stevengerickson AT Yahoo Dot Com

I believe Krayeske was put on the Connecticut State Police Homeland Security Fusion Center "Arrest on Sight" List. Chris Kennedy and Steven G. Erickson are alleged to also have been on that list.

[click here] for post and video to go along with:

Target on Enemies List

* * * *

Target on Enemies List

Text with video:

Uploaded by on Jan 11, 2010

Secret Police memos obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, scroll as a pdf in video. Police aren't interested in members of the KKK, skinheads, hate groups, actual criminals, and others. They're after journalists and bloggers critical of government. The police are actively out to false arrest anyone on the list. With false arrests sometimes comes prison. So political prisoners are being held in the US. There is no mention of terrorists, mainly Steven G. Erickson, Ken Krayeske, Chris Kennedy, and those who are journalists, bloggers, or who just wrote letters critical of public corruption and police misconduct and brutality in the State of Connecticut.

US President Richard M. Nixon had an enemies list for dealing with political rivals and those with "Big Mouths". Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell seems to think the same way. Target citizens for political reasons and see to it that they are ruined, arrested, and left penniless facing prison. More information:

* * * *

US Homeland Security Fusion Center Locations and Information:

* * * *

Kenneth Krayeske's blog:

Pictures, info, and more from Ken on his arrest for showing up at Connecticut Governor M Jodi Rell's inaugural parade:

* * * *

[click here] for:

Connecticut Governor not running next election

Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell out relaxing. Is there a smoking gun in the Rell administration? Scroll down for pictures and more.


Wednesday, April 06, 2011

Has Obama Voided US Courts AND broken yet more campaign promises?

Text with below video:

Uploaded by on Apr 5, 2011

Human Rights First Senior Associate Daphne Eviatar weighs in on President Obama's April 4 decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at Guantanamo Bay instead of New York City. Obama previously announced that he was aiming to close Gitmo, but two years later could he actually have done it? With critics from all sides questioning Obama's handling of the current economic crisis, to what degree will this trial really impact the American public?

Gitmo KSM Trial Breaks Obama's Promise

* * * *


Friday, April 01, 2011

No shortage of Judicial Abuse Victims

I recently received an email about a "Michael Powell", I don't know if the below is that individual, or not. I believe that the cops, courts, and US Government is corrupt regarding justice, the drug trade, and any US Constitutional protections. Black Operations being funded with cocaine and heroin trafficking money was highlighted with Colonel Oliver North, Iran-Contra, during the US President Ronald Reagan years. The CIA, various State Police, the FBI, etc. all seem to be covertly about drug running, furthering international banking and corporate agendas and in ripping the rest of us off. Railroading us to prison, torturing us, and murdering us when convenient has always been the case.

I got in the way of State sponsored crime, prostitution, drug dealing, and putting competition for organized crime businesses, out of business. Exposing public corruption, police brutality, and judicial misconduct as I did can land you on the Homeland Security Fusion Center Police Arrest on Sight List.
[Fusion Center info]

Police and citizens who sell drugs in competition with the US Government, CIA, and DEA drug running cartels are the ones who are targets of "Law Enforcement" and US Courts of "Justice". Big Mouth citizens are also targets as this blogger is, and was.

I talk about my injustice in a video at the bottom of [this post].
stevengerickson AT yahoo Dot Com


The below found

695 F.2d 868: Thomas Michael Powell, Petitioner-appellee, v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, John Allman, Superintendent, Etc.,et al., Respondents,attorney General of the United States, Respondent-appellant

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 695 F.2d 868
Jan. 17, 1983

James A. Rolfe, U.S. Atty., Cheryl B. Wattley, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., Patrick J. Glynn, U.S. Parole Com'n, Bethesda, Md., for respondent-appellant.

Eliot Dana Shavin, Houston, Tex. (Court-Appointed), for petitioner-appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before GOLDBERG, GEE and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.


A Mexican court convicted Thomas Michael Powell for a drug offense and sentenced him to six years, three months in prison, the term to commence on May 14, 1976, and end on August 13, 1982. Because of 336 days of work credits received by Powell during his imprisonment, the Mexican authorities changed the release date to September 8, 1981. On April 30, 1978, Powell was transferred to the United States pursuant to the Treaty between the United States and Mexico on the Execution of Penal Sentences (Treaty).1 On September 22, 1978, the United States Parole Commission paroled Powell. During parole, Powell was arrested and convicted for using a communication device to facilitate the importation of marijuana and was given a new two-year sentence. Based on this conviction, the Parole Commission revoked Powell's parole and ordered that he serve to two years, four months and seventeen days, the aggregate of the new sentence and the parole violation term. The presumptive parole date was extended to March 1, 1982. This order forfeited Powell's Mexican work credits.

In his habeas petition, Powell argued below that the work credits permanently reduced his original sentence, preventing forfeiture of the credits when his parole was revoked. Rejecting the magistrate's recommendation that the Mexican courts should determine the issue,2 the district court granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered that Powell's sentence be recomputed to restore the 336 days of work credit. Because we find that credits for work performed in a Mexican prison do not effect a permanent sentence reduction but can be forfeited for a parole violation after transfer, we reverse the finding of the district court.

Mootness of the Case

Powell argues that this court cannot reach the issue of the effect of the work credits on his Mexican sentence because the appeal is moot. Because the full term of the sentence imposed by the Mexican court, without considering the effect of work credits, ended August 13, 1982, Powell asserts that a reversal of the district court's decision would have no practical effect. Powell's argument assumes that the time that has passed since his early release as a result of the district court's order of recomputation would be applied to the full term sentence. Yet the Supreme Court has held that "[m]ere lapse of time without imprisonment or other restraint contemplated by the law does not constitute service of sentence." Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193, 196, 44 S.Ct. 43, 44, 68 L.Ed. 247 (1923). See also Caballery v. United States Parole Commission, 673 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1982). Therefore, a reversal of the decision of the district court would mean that Powell could be made to serve the time remaining on his sentence at the time of his court-ordered early release. See Gill v. Garrison, 675 F.2d 599 (4th Cir.1982).3

Powell argues that Article V(3) of the Treaty requires that the time that has elapsed since he was released awaiting appeal in this case be credited to his Mexican sentence. Article V(3) provides:

No sentence of confinement shall be enforced by the Receiving State in such a way as to extend its duration beyond the date at which it would have terminated according to the sentence of the court of the Transferring State.

Powell asserts that under Article V(3), the United States may not enforce his Mexican sentence so as to extend it beyond August 13, 1982, "the date at which it would have terminated according to the sentence of the court of the Transferring State." We interpret the Treaty to mean that the date at which the sentence would have terminated is the time of expiration of the six-year, three-month period, not the specific date of August 13, 1982.4 The expiration of that six-year, three-month period would not occur until Powell served the balance of the sentence that remained at the time of his release. As Powell is yet exposed to confinement under the Mexican sentence this case is not moot.

Forfeiture of the Work Credits

Appellants argue that under the Treaty and the implementing legislation, work credits are to be treated as credits in the nature of good time that can be forfeited for parole violations rather than as sentence reductions. The Treaty provides in Article V(2):

Except as otherwise provided in this Treaty, the completion of a transferred offender's sentence shall be carried out according to the laws and procedures of the Receiving State, including the application of any provisions for reduction of the term of confinement by parole, conditional release, or otherwise....

The treatment of work credits after parole revocation is not "otherwise provided" for in the Treaty, so the laws of the United States apply.5

The Treaty's implementing legislation treats foreign work credits as good time credits. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4105(c)(1) provides that "all credits for good time, for labor or any other credit" given by the transferring country shall be combined with good time credits subsequently awarded by the United States to provide a release date for the offender under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4164. This court has held that good time credits do not reduce the sentence imposed by a court; rather, "good time is a conditional right that may be forfeited upon violation of the conditions of the prisoner's release." Frierson v. Rogers, 289 F.2d 234, 235 (5th Cir.1961). See also Granville v. Hogan, 591 F.2d 323 (5th Cir.1979); Lambert v. Warden, 591 F.2d 4 (5th Cir.1979). As work credits are treated like good time credits under the implementing legislation, they, too, are forfeitable.6 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4105(c)(4) provides that "[a]ll credits toward service of the sentence, other than the credit for time in custody before sentencing, may be forfeited as provided in section 4165 of this title...." Section 4105(c)(4) is not directly applicable to Powell because Sec. 4165 refers to forfeiture of credits for violations of the rules of the institution during the time of imprisonment, but it nonetheless demonstrates that the congressional interpretation of the Treaty was that work credits be considered an early release measure in the nature of good time credits, not immutable sentence reductions.

Powell relies on Article VI and Article V(3) to support his argument that the Mexican work credits effected a permanent sentence reduction that cannot be changed by United States authorities. Article VI provides:

The Transferring State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any proceedings, regardless of their form, intended to challenge, modify or set aside sentences handed down by its courts.

Article V(3) provides:

No Sentence of confinement shall be enforced by the Receiving State in such a way as to extend its duration beyond the date at which it would have terminated according to the sentence of the court of the Transferring State.

(emphasis added).

Powell's argument proves too much. Both articles refer to the "sentence of the court." Powell's work credits were not part of the sentence of the court of Mexico but were administratively awarded credits for early release from his sentence. Likewise, the Mexican sentence computation document, which sets the release date as September 8, 1981 because of the work credits awarded, is an administrative, not a court document. The work credits recorded in that document are not evidence of modification of the judicially imposed sentence.7 Powell's original sentence will "terminate[ ] according to the sentence of the Court" when he has served the six years and three months required by that sentence. As the work credits awarded him did not permanently reduce that sentence but were subject to forfeiture upon parole violation, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED.

Under the Treaty a citizen of the United States, convicted of a criminal offense in Mexico, is permitted to transfer from Mexican to American custody for the balance of the sentence provided certain conditions are met. The offense for which he has been convicted must be generally punishable in the United States and must be neither a political nor an immigration offense. The transferring offender must be both a national of the United States and not a domiciliary of Mexico. Only prisoners with a minimum of six months remaining on their sentences, and for whom no appeal or collateral attack is currently pending in the Mexican courts, are eligible for transfer. Finally, Mexico, the United States, and the transferring prisoner must each consent to the change in custody

The district court opined that if the question were presented to a Mexican court, the decision would be favorable to petitioner, i.e., the 336 days of work credit would operate to reduce permanently the original sentence of the Mexican court. The court concluded, however, that it could not reasonably be expected that a decision could be reached before Powell's release date

Powell relies on Bowers v. United States Board of Parole, 544 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.1977), in which the court determined that the case was mooted by petitioner's unconditional release. In that case, however, even if the district court's decision had been reversed, the petitioner would not have been subject to being reincarcerated because the controversy was over the procedures followed by the Parole Board. Here, the controversy is over the length of the sentence, and "the possibility remains that [Powell] can be reincarcerated." Gill v. Garrison, 675 F.2d at 601

An analogous interpretation has been made of the Federal Youth Corrections Act, which provides in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 5017(c):

A youth offender committed under section 5010(b) of this chapter shall be released conditionally under supervision on or before the expiration of four years from the date of his conviction and shall be discharged unconditionally on or before six years from the date of his conviction.

Notwithstanding the reference to unconditional discharge six years from the date of the conviction, such sentences are interrupted and their termination dates correspondingly postponed when the committed youth offender is not actually serving the sentence. See, e.g., Henrique v. United States Marshal, 653 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 102 S.Ct. 1452, 71 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982) (abscondence from parole supervision); Ogg v. Klein, 572 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir.1978) (escape from confinement); United States v. Marshall, 532 F.2d 410 (5th Cir.1976) (civil contempt sentence); Frye v. Moran, 302 F.Supp. 1291 (W.D.Tex.1969), aff'd without ruling on issue, 417 F.2d 315 (5th Cir.1969) (bail pending appeal).

We observe that, were Mexican law to guide our decision, Article 81 of Mexico's Penal Code states that there shall be a reduction of a prisoner's time to be served for every two days work, provided that the prisoner observes good conduct, participates regularly in the educational activities that are organized in the institution and otherwise shows social readjustment, this last condition being indispensable. Thus, the award of work credits is conditional and subject to forfeiture

Powell points out that the United States Parole Commission has determined that street credits earned by transferees under the Treaty while on parole in Mexico may not be forfeited for parole violations committed in the United States. See 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 3146, 3157 (time served on parole before revocation must be credited). Street credits are not like work credits, however, because they represent time actually served. A forfeiture of street credits would be a forfeiture of time served and would result in an extension of the time of the sentence. A forfeiture of work credits is not a forfeiture of time served but rather a forfeiture of an early release credit like good time

Article VI(7) of the Treaty distinguishes between the sentence computation document and the document recording the sentence of the court and modifications thereof. That article provides:

The Transferring State shall furnish the Receiving State a statement showing the offense of which the offender was convicted, the duration of the sentence, the length of time already served by the prisoner and any credits to which the offender is entitled, such as, but not limited to work done, good behavior or pretrial confinement. Such statement shall be translated into the language of the Receiving State, and duly authenticated. The Transferring State shall also furnish the Receiving State a certified copy of the sentence handed down by the competent judicial authority and any modifications thereof.

* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for:

Law Enforcement shooting citizens in the back with shotguns and getting away with it

* * * *

The below post should highlight what are not so untypical US police officers, post includes video:


View My Stats