A soliloquy to True Love

Ah! . . . When was it  you and I  met?

was it in the days of Kings & Queens 

Before you were sold/bought -- captured & taken to the ships

bound for a land you knew not where?

or

Was it in the fields where he labored for nought

while you slaved in the kitchen of a house that Jack had

built upon the bones of parents you knew not

children you could not have . . .

built upon the tears you dared not shed

blood you did not own?

just when was it you and i met?

was it on the back of the bus

where even a word spoken between you

must be in whispered tones?

or

Was it amidst the throngs in endless procession

as you marched blindly...arm-in-arm, heads held high . . .

between two dead men's feet hoping in vain that

your rights as human beings would be recognized

by people not quite civil? 

just when was it you and i met?

Was it on a slick city street

where the fast life, the night life, the hip life - the no life

takes its toll

upon the undead who lives a thousand deaths

as Black dreams are deferred in lieu-of

down payments of cadillacs

or some such hog

and the precious skins of animals are tokens

for admittance into a world

not quite enough for the cit-tay?

Just when was it you and i met?

Was it when you were torn apart. . .

he to the new masta's houses for the wretched of the earth

you left 'free" to suffer alone

at the claws of the demons of death

and protectors of wealth

who care nothing about your love or you?

or

. . . Did you meet in the grips of insanity

as you bravely fought the cruelties you could not phantom

while he patiently with love fought at your side?

Just when was it you and i met?

Was it when you needed him most

and he was always there?

or

Was it when he needed you most

and you were always there?

Just when was it you say you and i met?

But when all is done and all is past. . . . does it really matter?. . . We've met. . . and i love you! 

Have a Great Day!!!    Solidarity and Peace!    

Loving To Be / Struggling To Be Free

A strong, virtuous and industrious young man sat contemplative & absorbed at the side of a lake. Strong of body, humble in spirit with the stillness of the water reflecting the serenity of his thoughts: thoughts of a harvest Soon to be gathered, thoughts of a gratefulness For communal trading & sharing, thoughts of our children... Our dedicated & nurturing wives, thoughts of our loving parents Instructing & giving advice, thoughts of our people ~ Our beautiful, beautiful, beautiful people loving to understand & loving to be understood, loving to help others & loving those who help them, loving to love & loving to be loved, loving the freedom of others & longing to be free themselves... Then suddenly and imperceptibly dreams transmitted to nightmares, tranquility to havoc, communal serenity to chaos, and freedom to an inhumane forced servitude the likes of which were never Known Before or after ------- Treacherously were we snatched from the place of our birth by a man with a plan calculating our laborious worth. Captured, shackled, bought, sold and traded By an avaricious incompassion...inhuman, untenable and hated. We've been denigrated, debilitated, depreciated and nigger-rated. We've been decried, denied, deprived, as well as separated. We've been brutalized, terrorized, dehumanized, and victimized. Then utilized, vilified and irrevocably criminalized. We've struggled, fought been ridiculed, massacred and died... In mutinies, rebellions, protests and even freedom rides. Despised as thieves, yet we continue to be stolen from... Demeaned as murderers, yet we continue to be slaughtered... Incarcerated as Insurgents ~ We must Continue to Struggle. We must still love to understand, and love to be understood. We must still love to help others, and love those who help us. We must still love to love, and love to be loved in return, We must still love the freedom of others..

Inmate Wins Lawsuit

PRISON GUARDS HELD LIABLE IN DAMAGES FOR UNNECESSARY AND EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST INMATE HUDSON 

Inmate Hudson, a Louisiana prisoner, testified that minor bruises, facial swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental plate he had suffered resulted from a beating by respondent prison guards McMillian and Woods while he was handcuffed and shackled following an argument with McMillian, and that respondent Mezo, a supervisor on duty, watched the beating, but merely told the officers "not to have too much fun." The Magistrate trying Hudson's District Court suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 found that the officers used force when there was no need to do so, and that Mezo expressly condoned their actions, ruled that respondents had violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, and awarded Hudson damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, inter alia, that inmates alleging use of excessive force in violation of the Amendment must prove "significant injury," and that Hudson could not prevail because his injuries were "minor," and required no medical attention.

Held: The use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate does not suffer serious injury. Pp. 5-12.

(a) Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force constituting "the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" violative of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-321: whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, [p2] or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Extending Whitley's application of the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" standard to all allegations of force, whether the prison disturbance is a riot or a lesser disruption, works no innovation. See, e.g., Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033. Pp. 5-7.

(b) Since, under the Whitley approach, the extent of injury suffered by an inmate is one of the factors to be considered in determining whether the use of force is wanton and unnecessary, 475 U.S. at 475 U.S. 321"]321, the absence of serious injury is relevant to, but does not end, the Eighth 

Amendment inquiry. There is no merit to respondents' assertion that a significant injury requirement is mandated by what this Court termed, in 321, the absence of serious injury is relevant to, but does not end, the Eighth Amendment inquiry. There is no merit to respondents' assertion that a significant injury requirement is mandated by what this Court termed, in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294"] 501 U.S. 294, 298, the "objective component" of Eighth Amendment analysis: whether the alleged wrongdoing is objectively "harmful enough" to establish a constitutional violation, id. at 303. That component is contextual, and responsive to "contemporary standards of decency." 501 U.S. 294, 298, the "objective component" of Eighth Amendment analysis: whether the alleged wrongdoing is objectively "harmful enough" to establish a constitutional violation, id. at 303. That component is contextual, and responsive to "contemporary standards of decency." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103. In the excessive force context, such standards always are violated when prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, see Whitley, 475 U.S. at 327, whether or not significant injury is evident. Moreover, although the Amendment does not reach de minimis uses of physical force, provided that such use is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind, ibid., the blows directed at Hudson are not de minimis, and the extent of his injuries thus provides no basis for dismissal of his § 1983 claim. Pp. 7-10.

(c) The dissent's theory that Wilson requires an inmate who alleges excessive force to show significant injury in addition to the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain misapplies Wilson, and ignores the body of this Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Wilson did not involve an allegation of excessive force and, with respect to the "objective component" of an Eighth Amendment claim, suggested no departure from Estelle and its progeny. The dissent's argument that excessive force claims and conditions of confinement claims are no different in kind is likewise unfounded. To deny the difference between punching a prisoner in the face and serving him unappetizing food is to ignore the concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency that animate the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, supra, 429 U.S. at 102. P. 10-11.

(d) This Court takes no position on respondents' legal argument that their conduct was isolated, unauthorized, and against prison policy, and therefore beyond the scope of "punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. That argument is inapposite on the record, since the Court of Appeals left intact the Magistrate's determination that the violence at issue was not an isolated assault, and ignores the Magistrate's finding that supervisor Mezo expressly condoned the use of force. Moreover, to the extent that respondents rely on the unauthorized nature [p3] of their acts, they make a claim not addressed by the Court of Appeals, not presented by the question on which this Court granted certiorari, and, accordingly, not before this Court. Pp. 11-12.

929 F.2d 1014 (CA 5 1990), reversed.

O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined, and in which STEVENS, J., joined as to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and II-C. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 12. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 13. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined, post, p. 17.

Have a Great Day!!!    Solidarity and Peace!    

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN PRISON WITHIN SHU.

  

                                                                Thousands of men and women are incarcerated who are released every year back into society and the majority are without any form of transitional therapy due to a lack of support or assistance while in.

When the incarcerated moves from prison to reentering society again, more than two-thirds will be arrested within three years and almost half will go back to prison either on a technical violation or for committing a new crime. 

Prisoner reentry services only go so far, and those trying to reintegrate back into society can be very difficult to do, to say the least. Even more so for those who have been subjected to the harsh prison conditions of isolation cells, solitary confinement and mental units which populate our prisons today in what is termed as The SHU (Special Housing Unit). Special housing refers to maximum security living units within our prison systems where inmates are placed based on the result of misconduct or as a result of circumstances that warrant their separation from the general population.

Think of it as isolation chamber of many sorts, but because the prison system is so over crowded, they have made it an acceptable practice to house two inmates in one isolation cell. These cells are called “the hole”  and those held in isolation live in these concrete made cells the size of an average parking space, usually windowless, cut completely off from others by solid steel doors.  The beds are made of pure steel. The toilets have a timer valve that shuts off the water usually after 3 flushes and the sinks have no taps, just buttons. The cells are freezing cold in the winter and burning up hot in the summer. The bright and blinding lights stay on virtually 24/7. Prisoners spend 23 hours a day during the week and 24 hours a day on weekends and holidays in the 6 by 9 foot cells. They are allowed 1 hour of recreation a day monday to friday, providing nothing changes up with conditions and situations. However, the recreation you may think is all swell, but I am sorry to inform you that its in a 10 by 10 foot dog pound cage.

 If they are lucky, they are allowed a change of jumpsuit and under clothes twice a week.  

It’s a world unto itself. Where boredom, emptiness and desperation come together, seeping into your non existence and eventually overcoming your mind in many ways. That is why it’s incumbent upon each individual to either build themselves up or else the mental conditions will be what consumes you. Solitary confinement is supposed to be for the worst of the worst, violent convicts who have proved themselves unwilling or unable to function on the mainline. But it’s turned into a thing where to put inmate undesirables. 

For example, an inmate who is general population living quarters can run into trouble everyday that will land him in solitary confinement. Take my word for it, I have found myself in SHU for some of the most ridiculous reasons to some reasons where I said to myself "buckle up kiddo, here comes the ride." I once was throwed in the SHU for 3 months because a officer said he saw me flush something that look liked a cellphone. The charges were dropped after 3 months being in the "hole." Then on one occasion I was booked for testing positive for marijuana. I was on my work site and was called to the Lieutenants Office as a "suspect." Meaning an enemy of mine or a snitch dropped my name in a note which we call "kites" because they fly into the prison administrators hands and they cause problems. Me personally, I call them "paper knives" because a snitch note is equivalent to stabbing a man in his back with a paper knife...... Well I tested positive on the urine sample cup but the lab results came back 5 days later confirming "Cannabis." I spent 3 months in the SHU and was allowed to return back GP (General Population) after my 90 days disciplinary sanction was completed.

However, inmates who go to the hole are those who have problems paying their drug or gambling debts, getting into fights, stabbing other ininmates  or who the executive administration or an officer feels is being disruptive. Prisoners in isolation are treated as subhumans because it undermines humanity and the identity of the inmate. It causes deprivation and has been widely viewed as torture and some inmates eventually attempt or successfully commit suicide to escape long term disciplinary isolation. All interactions are conducted over a telephone with plexiglas divider or bars between prisoners and other humans. You get only one 15 minute phone call a month in the SHU and you are kept isolated. Every time you leave the cell for rec or a shower you're handcuffed and escorted by several officers like moving Hannibal Lecter. It doesn’t matter if the prisoner is a mass murderer or white collar criminal, you are treated the same. Every aspect of their lives is under official control. ln the SHU your only view to the world is a 6 x 12 inch door window and a slot that is 4 inches wide where the guards pass your food trays, change of clothing and hygiene items through that same slot in the steel door. 

The environment is so grossly abnormal, so foreign to normal human interactions that it twists the insides of your stomache. Your mind will get bent if you are there too long and end up off center unless you're a different breed like me who believe the only conditions I cannot bear is death, but anything such as disciplinary isolation to me is simply making an adjustment. However, for some, right becomes whatever and wrong no longer exists. In any special housing unit the screams are normal, its just of those souls who have lost all ability to control themselves and the sound reverberates like a symphony of the sick and damned. 

The disturbing behavior that goes on includes prisoner’s smearing feces on their bodies, the walls of the cell, eating it or throwing it at guards when they open the tray slot. They do other things from wailing and screaming while banging on the cell doors; having delusional conversations in their heads and even mutilating their bodies or swallowing razors. All of this behavior is hidden from the press and not known by society because in solitary confinement, isolation cells are off limits to journalists and these units are never shown to the media on official visits. Daily life becomes very hard and some will never be the same again. The craziness that exists is rampant, it becomes suffocating and each morning starts with anger before the anxiety. It is very difficult to cope with when you have the noise at all hours, the doors being kicked on and men screaming, letting loose their pent up rage and acting like lunatics because its just a fact that some inmates experience intense paranoia, depression, memory loss, perceptual distortions and anxiety. Their only relief is a mental health worker who stops by the door and looks into the window for five seconds at each cell while asking, “Are you ok,” before moving on. 

 Solitary confinement is a form of deprivation, in that perception shrinks the dimensions of the visual, auditory and even sense of taste are among the depravities. Sometimes things can get out of control to where prisoners are teargassed in their cells, pepper sprayed, four point restrained to the bed, stripped of thier jumpsuit and extracted from their cells forcefully for being uncooperative, going on hunger strikes where they have to be force fed by court order, to refusing to take their mental or medical medications like Thorzine. 

 The Bureau of Prisons has agreed to undergo a “comprehensive and independent assessment of its use of solitary confinement in the nation’s federal prisons.” This is a positive step forward, but more has to be done. With all the prisoners coming home, a high number of whom have spent time in SHU, reentry programs and transitional services need to be reevaluated and developed to help those in need so they can readjust to society. With a thorough and detailed investigation, the darkest secrets of the prison industrial complex can come to light and be corrected. 

Have a Great Day!!!    Solidarity and Peace!!

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Rule 11. Pleas

(a) Entering a Plea.(1) In General. A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty, or (with the court's consent) nolo contendere.(2) Conditional Plea. With the consent of the court and the government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion. A defendant who prevails on appeal may then withdraw the plea.(3) Nolo Contendere Plea. Before accepting a plea of nolo contendere, the court must consider the parties’ views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice.(4) Failure to Enter a Plea. If a defendant refuses to enter a plea or if a defendant organization fails to appear, the court must enter a plea of not guilty.(b) Considering and Accepting a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea.(1) Advising and Questioning the Defendant. Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the defendant may be placed under oath, and the court must address the defendant personally in open court. During this address, the court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following:(A) the government's right, in a prosecution for perjury or false statement, to use against the defendant any statement that the defendant gives under oath;(B) the right to plead not guilty, or having already so pleaded, to persist in that plea;(C) the right to a jury trial;(D) the right to be represented by counsel—and if necessary have the court appoint counsel—at trial and at every other stage of the proceeding;(E) the right at trial to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be protected from compelled self-incrimination, to testify and present evidence, and to compel the attendance of witnesses;(F) the defendant's waiver of these trial rights if the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere;(G) the nature of each charge to which the defendant is pleading;(H) any maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment, fine, and term of supervised release;(I) any mandatory minimum penalty;(J) any applicable forfeiture;(K) the court's authority to order restitution;(L) the court's obligation to impose a special assessment;(M) in determining a sentence, the court's obligation to calculate the applicable sentencing-guideline range and to consider that range, possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and other sentencing factors under18 U.S.C. §3553(a);(N) the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence; and(O) that, if convicted, a defendant who is not a United States citizen may be removed from the United States, denied citizenship, and denied admission to the United States in the future.(2) Ensuring That a Plea Is Voluntary. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement).(3) Determining the Factual Basis for a Plea. Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.(c) Plea Agreement Procedure.(1) In General. An attorney for the government and the defendant's attorney, or the defendant when proceeding pro se, may discuss and reach a plea agreement. The court must not participate in these discussions. If the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere to either a charged offense or a lesser or related offense, the plea agreement may specify that an attorney for the government will:(A) not bring, or will move to dismiss, other charges;(B) recommend, or agree not to oppose the defendant's request, that a particular sentence or sentencing range is appropriate or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a recommendation or request does not bind the court); or(C) agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement).(2) Disclosing a Plea Agreement.The parties must disclose the plea agreement in open court when the plea is offered, unless the court for good cause allows the parties to disclose the plea agreement in camera.(3) Judicial Consideration of a Plea Agreement.(A) To the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the court may accept the agreement, reject it, or defer a decision until the court has reviewed the presentence report.(B) To the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(B), the court must advise the defendant that the defendant has no right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the recommendation or request.(4) Accepting a Plea Agreement. If the court accepts the plea agreement, it must inform the defendant that to the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified inRule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the agreed disposition will be included in the judgment.(5) Rejecting a Plea Agreement. If the court rejects a plea agreement containing provisions of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the court must do the following on the record and in open court (or, for good cause, in camera):(A) inform the parties that the court rejects the plea agreement;(B) advise the defendant personally that the court is not required to follow the plea agreement and give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea; and(C) advise the defendant personally that if the plea is not withdrawn, the court may dispose of the case less favorably toward the defendant than the plea agreement contemplated.(d) Withdrawing a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea. A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere:(1) before the court accepts the plea, for any reason or no reason; or(2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if:(A) the court rejects a plea agreement under 11(c)(5); or(B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.(e) Finality of a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea. After the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack.(f) Admissibility or Inadmissibility of a Plea, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements.The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.(g) Recording the Proceedings. The proceedings during which the defendant enters a plea must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device. If there is a guilty plea or a nolo contendere plea, the record must include the inquiries and advice to the defendant required under Rule 11(b) and (c).(h) Harmless Error. A variance from the requirements of this rule is harmless error if it does not affect substantial rights.

INSIDE THE BELLY OF THE BEAST

JUSTICE FOR TERRY COLLEY

   

My name is Terry Colley. I committed the offense of bank robbery during the early 1990's at the age of 23. I was sentenced to 60 years without parole. For me, it has been an unjust 60 year prison sentence all stemming from the word "Go."

It is a fact that my conviction is an unjust one. This is not a statement designed to escape the reality or responsibility for my crimes committed. I am the only remaining defendant out of 3 that still sits in prison. My two co-defendants served less than ten years and have been released for more than eleven years now. My current projected release date is in 2053.

After serving over 2 decades in prison, I am now age 44. I am currently housed at the Federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, which has lowered its custody security level status to "medium" insofar as housing particular class of inmates.

In terms of my legal relief: My case was handled in the early 90's and done in such a reckless manner that it completely shocks the conscience of legal jurisprudence, the due process clause of the fifth amendment and a defendant's guaranteed constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution.

In particular, I wasn't in federal custody when the Court appointed attorney Kevin R. Brehm to handle my case. He in turn executed his own decisions without having informed me of actual legal proceedings he was engaged in with the federal government. This was a very critical stage of my case called: plea negotiations.

An Atlanta Federal Judge name Robert L. Vining Jr., subsequently impaneled a jury to try me on my federal offenses. However, he did not make me aware that a guilty plea offer had been rejected by my court appointed attorney Kevin R. Brehm. This judge didn't hold any court appearance involving me with my appointed attorney at any time to confirm that I was the one who knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently rejected a plea offer.

I was never asked: If I understood the charges against me, the maximum sentence involved if convicted at trial, or whether if I was presently under the influence of any drugs, alcohol or prescription medication that would affect my understanding the nature of that critical phase in my case. These things were never done in my case before being tried, convicted, and sentenced to sixty years in federal prison without parole.

Today the Courts are basically saying that what happened way back then or when, its decisions as to my conviction and sentence of 60 years is final and refuses to acknowledge that anything happened. Judge Robert L. Vining, Jr., is still sitting on the bench refusing to release me from this unconstitutional restraint of my freedom.

Institution Mailing Address:

Terry Colley Reg# 45043-019

Atlanta USP @ P.O.Box 150160

Atlanta, Georgia 30315.

HALF WAY HOUSE REFORM

Attorney General Eric Holder Announces New Rules for Federal 

Halfway Houses  

Being on the inside looking out, it seems that Attorney General Holder has been on a one man crusade the last year to reshape the policies and practices of the federal criminal justice system. For those of us buried in the belly of the beast this has been much welcomed news. Because for so long we have had nothing coming.  With the War on Drugs and Tough on Crime rhetoric and polices, we have been locked away in here and forgotten. Out of sight and out of mind. To those of us in prison the whole half-way house system seems to be designed for those who are self starters and go getters, but what about those with issues, disabilities or who lack motivation or direction?   I have heard stories about the half way house rules, always tthreatening  inmates  that  they better take whatever job they were offered,  or whoever missed a job interview or work because of transportation issues were basically confined to the halfway house or sent back to prison to finish up their last remaining months before being released. 

 But hold up, let h enlighten you about the irony of how halfway houses play a big part. By announcing new policies and programming for federal halfway houses, the Justice Department seems sincere in taking new steps to fight against recidivism. They seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on reentry and with thousands of people reentering society after serving their sentences it’s about time. The government should do everything they can to help us transition back to the world. With this in mind, the Attorney General has made it a requirement for federal halfway houses to boost treatment services for inmates prior to release. Including providing transportation assistance, cell phone access in order to help inmates seek employment opportunities and basically making the transition period at the halfway house less restrictive and more proactive. So ex-prisoners can obtain jobs, 

get transportation and spend their last months in home confinement.

Attorney General Eric Holder Announces New Rules for Federal Halfway Houses.

Here's the death grip; halfway houses are really all about getting 25 percent of your paycheck. That is the main thing they are interested in. They want you working whatever job is available so that they can get their cut. They want money for the bed that you occupy. The ability to gain more privileges is based on you getting a job and giving 25 percent of your paycheck to the halfway house. This is how it has been explained to me by returning prisoners who were at the Atlanta Transition Center and other halfway houses in general, during my incarceration.  My aim is to be freed, not enter into another segment of slavery involving this justice system.  

VOTING RIGHTS FOR CONVICTED FELONS

  In most states, convicted felons are not able to vote, even after they have served their time. While it’s a statistical fact that many felons recidivate, there are many who return to the world and become law abiding citizens. They have paid their debt to society and learned from their mistakes. In effect, their prison sentences rehabilitated them and they are being disenfranchised for life, due to one mistake. With an estimated 5.8 people either incarcerated or on parole, that number represents a large group of American citizens who are prohibited from voting.Recently Attorney General Eric H. Holder urged states to repeal laws that prohibit the formerly incarcerated from voting. Holder said it is “time to fundamentally rethink laws that permanently disfranchises people who are no longer under federal or state supervision.” The call was mostly symbolic as Mr. Holder has no authority to enact these changes himself, but it was the Attorney General’s latest effort to eliminate laws that he says disproportionately keeps minorities from the polls.An NAACP delegation and several voting rights organizations have taken up the call also and took their case for ex-offender voting rights in the United States. Appealing to an international body to help solve a domestic issue is an unusual step for us groups, signaling that efforts to address the problem through the usual domestic channels have been fruitless. “Going to the United Nations is a way for us to have the UN evaluate what the US has done to meet its obligations, from voting rights to civil rights,” Hilary Shelton, an NAACP Vice President said.Stripping former felons of their rights to vote disenfranchises many African Americans, who are disproportionally represented in the criminal justice system, the NAACP said.African Americans represent more than a third of the 5.8 million people who are prohibited from voting. And in certain southern states, more than one in five African-Americans have lost the right to vote. Mr. Holder said the laws stemmed from the late 1800s when states tried to keep blacks from voting. The United States is unique in the democratic world for barring people from voting in such large numbers.“It is unwise, it is unjust and it is not in keeping with our democratic values,” Holder said. “These laws deserve to be not only reconsidered, but repealed.” The proposal is an extension of a broader plan Holder announced to revamp the US criminal justice system.“Former offenders continue to face significant obstacles. Across the country today, an estimated 5.8 million Americans are prohibited from voting because of current or previous felony convictions,” Holder said. “That’s more than the individual population of 31 states.” With the drug war waning, it seems America is struggling with the fact that she has turned into incarceration nation. Finally public officials are speaking out on the issues and hopefully this will signal a change for the future.With nearly eight percent of adult African Americans, or one out of every 13, disenfranchised more than 2.2 million African American adults can’t vote, even though 40 percent of them completed their sentences. Democracy Imprisoned, a report by the NAACP and The Sentencing Project examines the numbers and the effect on our country’s democratic process. It highlights the various processes that ex-convicts have to go through in the attempt to get their voting rights back, and in a lot of cases, it is a process filled with numerous obstacles for the disenfranchised

KEEPING THE LEGAL BATTLE ALIVE

Could you imagine being on trial and never being told of a plea deal? Your appointed legal council fails to acknowledge your existence at all and at the end of the day, you are railroaded by the system? Terry Colley has spent 21 years out of a 60 year sentence in USP Atlanta. . 

What’s even harder to understand is that Colley’s rights as a citizen was violated: From September 21, 1994 to November 21, 1994; A plea deal by the government was made on Colley’s behalf in which Colley was never informed. In fact, Colley’s legal council rejected the plea deal without even informing Colley that negotiations were taking place. The crazy part is, this isn’t all that happened. It actually got worse.What is interesting in this case is that, There are no records of the federal plea negotiation proceedings. This case involves no fatalities, injuries, or restraints. Terry Colley is in Prison for what is known as an “Old School” bank robbery. 

In.one csse there was no real gun used in the offense. Is 60 years really a just sentence for someone who veered down the wrong path after surviving a troubled childhood? Terry Colley will be 85 years old by the time his sentence is completely served. It leaves one to question: Is this a just punishment for this crime and can the system really railroad a man like this and get away with it? Is 21 years not enough? The argument of Terry’s innocence is not the issue. Colley acknowledges his role in the crime. The argument simply surrounds the word: Justice.

“You see, you can’t do a long term prison sentence with hate or vengeance in your heart, mind or soul. It will make you deteriorate fast! Seriously, you will lose hair, teeth, brain cells get weak because you only using the ones that make you hate something, your skin gets bad and you become a management problem. Most likely addicted to some form of legal drug being sold in prison too. So one day, you gotta sit down and forgive yourself, those who have betrayed you in the streets, those you hate, the ones who hurt you or somebody you loved, and you gotta purify……. gotta pray for them this one time and release that energy outta you! When you do that, that’s the day you become a different person that is happier with life….. can see the real enemy and your purpose clearer”– Terry Colley 

Terry Colley is in the battle of his life. He is the last of three men that is still held captive in a crime that was deemed to not have a “leadership” role, even though he was the oldest (23). What makes this even worse is that Colley’s co-defendants both only served a decade for this crime while the book was thrown at Colley. The other defendants have also been out for a decade and have reinserted themselves into society. I’m sorry but something just doesn’t add up here. We MUST reexamine the case of The United States vs. Colley again. Is 60 Years, really fair? Better yet, is 60 years without notifying the one on trial of a plea agreement even constitutional? Colley never got to “Plea on the Nose” neither. That also supports the fact that he was never informed about the plea. The question isn’t whether or not if Terry Colley was involved in the crimes that he was convicted of, the question lies in the conviction and the trial process for Terry Colley (which was so fast, it was nearly a blur). After a troubled adolescence and an unhealthy battle with depression rooting back to his childhood, It is safe to say that Terry has reformed his life today while being behind the wall. He has used these 21 years as a time of reflection. He did not allow bitterness or even that familiar spirit of depression to consume him. Instead, Terry Colley used his prison experience positively and as the tool to jump-start the process of him rehabilitating his life. He has become the peacemaker. All he needs is a chance. Is that too much to ask?

“I have pretty much exhausted all forms of legal relief pertaining to my federal case where Senior U.S. District Judge Robert L Vining, Jr., continues to refuse to address the legal issues surrounding the 1994 guilty plea proceedings that I can prove violated my due process rights, and right to effective assistance of counsel under the 5th and sixth amendments to the U.S Constitution. No evidence has ever been shown that I personally rejected a plea offer or that I was ever informed that a plea offer even existed for a 17 year sentence that a court appointed attorney turned down without my involvement, knowledge, or consent. I am optimistic that one day I will be able to prevail with the right professional legal assistance that can show that I was not in federal custody during the federal plea process, in which I was required to be, in which, my case is now one, where the rules were changed and have been swept under the rug for over two decades.”–Terry Colley

WELCOME TO JUSTICE FOR TERRY

Terry Colley is an inmate at the Atlanta Federal Correctional Facility in Atlanta Georgia. He has been incarcerated 21 years. Terry is a model prisoner, an author, writer, inmate journalist, nutrition specialist, paralegal in civil, criminal and constitutional law, inmate academic tutor, student of political and behavior science and Terry has strong interest in juvenile delinquency reform involving challenged and at risk youth that he would like to serve as a mentor and Big Brother role model figure. Terry is also the creator of Justice For Terry Blog that keep his supporters up to date and filled in on Terry's current legal status and news. Terry has two children, a son and a daughter who are both young adults. Terry also have three grandchildren. As of current, Terry's relase is in 2053.