ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014 JUSTICE FOR ALL Page-1 HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details. Second Annual Lifer Celebration June 21 st 2014 Noon until 6PM Eccher & Chandler Consulting is happy to announce that we are hosting our lifer celebration. All lifers, families, and friends are invited to attend. Location: Boisseranc Park 7520 Dale St. Buena Park, CA 90620 The park is already reserved. It is on North Dale Street with the major cross-street La Palma Avenue. 1 mile from the I-5/91 Freeway Split. This is a beautiful park with 200-parking spots nearby, 2-playgrounds for kids, 4-tennis/handball courts, 3- basketball courts, swimming pool with 2-life guards, 2-large clean restrooms, dog- friendly, plenty of grass and shade trees. We have 26-tables and 125-chairs, bring a blanket and make it a picnic if you like! Buena Park is normally 80-degrees in June. No alcohol allowed in park. Sorry. FOOD: 400-pieces of Fried Chicken, 300-Tacos, 300-Smoked Sausages, 1000-bottles of water and cans of soda, potato salad, coleslaw, chips, fresh vegetables and fruit, plus plenty of sweets. Everyone is welcome regardless. If you would like to bring a dish or make a donation that would be appreciated to help offset the cost but it is not necessary in any way. JUST COME AND ENJOY THE CELEBRATION! Please RSVP name and number in your party to [email protected]or [email protected]
Transcript
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-1
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
Second Annual Lifer Celebration
June 21st 2014
Noon until 6PM
Eccher & Chandler Consulting is happy to announce that we are hosting our
lifer celebration. All lifers, families, and friends are invited to attend.
Location: Boisseranc Park 7520 Dale St. Buena Park, CA 90620
The park is already reserved. It is on North Dale Street with the major cross-street
La Palma Avenue. 1 mile from the I-5/91 Freeway Split. This is a beautiful park
with 200-parking spots nearby, 2-playgrounds for kids, 4-tennis/handball courts, 3-
basketball courts, swimming pool with 2-life guards, 2-large clean restrooms, dog-
friendly, plenty of grass and shade trees. We have 26-tables and 125-chairs, bring a
blanket and make it a picnic if you like! Buena Park is normally 80-degrees in June.
No alcohol allowed in park. Sorry. FOOD: 400-pieces of Fried Chicken, 300-Tacos, 300-Smoked
Sausages, 1000-bottles of water and cans of soda, potato salad,
coleslaw, chips, fresh vegetables and fruit, plus plenty of sweets.
Everyone is welcome regardless. If you would like to bring a dish
or make a donation that would be appreciated to help offset the
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
THE BOARD APPOINTS ATTORNEYS FOR EACH PRISON The Board approved a revised Panel Attorney Appointment Process and Application for selection of State
appointed inmate attorneys for parole suitability and medical parole hearings at all state prisons across the state.
All attorneys, existing and newly interested, who wanted to be considered for appointment as a state appointed
attorney with the Board had to submit a new application to Board consisting of the following items postmarked
or emailed no later than December 31, 2013: (1) A current resume; (2) Proof of compliance with Minimum
Qualification #1: Proof of “active” status and “good standing” with the California State Bar and Minimum
Qualification #4: Attend the Board Orientation in October 2013 or January 2014; and, (3) A signed copy of the
signature page of the program description/application. Those candidates who submitted a completed
application by the deadline were eligible for entrance into the public lottery for selection of the Board’s state
attorney appointment list, which was held at the Board Executive Board Room on January 17th
, 2014. Based on
the updated Board Panel Groupings by Location, a total of 59 active attorney assignments were awarded. THE
ACTIVE LIST: Experience Awarded; Before the public lottery meeting, all candidates were ranked in order
of experience, which was established by calculating the number of full hearings (i.e., hearings resulting in a
grant, denial or stipulation) that each attorney conducted. The first half of the active attorneys selected and
awarded on each panel was filled in order of experience among the candidates requesting that panel. The
Lottery; The second half of the active attorneys selected on each panel were filled randomly among all the
candidates requesting that panel who were not previously selected. Listed below are the results of the process.
PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON HIGH DESERT & CAL. CORR. CENTER
Rutledge, Richard Garfinkel, Michele
Shawky, Tarek Morgan, Alexandra
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, CSP‐SOLANO AND SAN QUENTIN
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
CORRECTIONAL TRAINING FACILITY AND
SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON
PLEASANT VALLEY, SATF, CORCORAN, N.
KERN, WASCO, KERN VALLEY, & AVENAL
Christensen, Candice Harris, Leon
Ferguson, Peter Ferguson, Peter
Gilbert, Katey O'Hara, Christopher
Hurst, Marcia Sparks, Patrick
Ibrahim, John Yahya Rutledge, Richard
CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY Osula, Philip
Harris, Leon Haytas, Joseph
Ferguson, Peter Comeau, Elizabeth
Ojo, Geoffrey Hall, Jeffrey
Morgan, Alexandra Strauss, Lawrence
CAL. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND
CSP‐LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR MEN AND
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN
Harris, Leon Eisenstat, Jared
Ramirez, David Ibrahim, John Yahya
Morgan, Alexandra Hoffs, Jesse
ECCHER & CHANDLER CONSULTING CHANGE OF ADDRESS ECC has changed our mailing address to P.O. Box 50106; Irvine, CA 92619. Logistics were the only
reason for the change. Our old mailing address will still be available because the United States Postal Service
will forward our mail from the old address to our new address for 6-months. Thank you for your notation. We
look forward to receiving your inquiries at our new mailing address.
MARC ERIC NORTON ATTORNEY AT LAW
BOLD - COMPETENT - PASSIONATE
LEGAL REPRESENTATION ● Representing Term-to-Life Clients at Parole Suitability Hearings Since 2006
● Practice Exclusively Limited to Parole Hearing and Related Matters; Including Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus on Board Denials and/or Governor Reversals of Parole Grants, Plus Youth Offender Parole Hearings
~~~~ --“The Board’s psychologist rated me as Moderate/High Risk for violent recidivism, but Marc tore that report apart piece by piece and got me a parole date on November 8, 2012. Marc is the best lawyer I’ve ever seen.” Glenn Bailey, B-47535
--“Marc fought for me like I paid him a half million dollars!” Edwin “Chief” Whitespeare, CMF (R.I.P.)
--“I did not commit the murder I am in prison for. Marc made sure the Board followed the law and got me a
parole date on October 25, 2013;even with 4 victims next-of-kin fighting against me.” Tossie Bennett, Solano
~~~~
PO Box 162 Zamora CA 95698 phone: 530.669.7999 -- collect calls gladly accepted (please be patient)
email: [email protected] I have successfully argued for 86 findings of parole suitability for “lifers.”
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
IN RE KENNETH MICHAEL FERGUSON’S
ORAL ARGUMENTS: By Red/Gary Eccher On March 14, 2014, Marc Norton and I drove down to the Fourth Appellate District Court, Division One, in
San Diego for oral arguments regarding the In re Kenneth Ferguson case. McConnell, McIntyre and McDonald
were the Justices. Marc did a great job arguing the case. He opened with Mr. Ferguson’s impeccable life
history of 70-years with only one violent episode; his perfect prison record; volumes of psychological reports
supporting parole; and his previous court order granting his case against the Board. Justice McConnell
dissented in the previous opinion and again appeared to be in opposition. She opened with why does Mr.
Ferguson contend that he was denied an individualized consideration? Marc replied it was based on the
significant stress that Mr. Ferguson experienced from a 23-year marriage that dissolved down to nothing over
the last 6-years. Marc pointed out that the Board never even hinted this factor of suitability supported parole
during the decision. The Attorney General (AG) alleged in the Return that Mr. Ferguson was still currently
dangerous because he never acknowledged the extent of injuries inflicted upon his wife. Marc corrected this
assertion by reading Mr. Ferguson’s statement from the transcripts that refuted this allegation. When the AG
got his fifteen minutes to speak, which actually amounted to only five minutes because he did not even have any
notes and only spewed Shaputis II insight mantras and the modicum of evidence standard to be imposed, Justice
McIntyre reacted with, “Counsel, are you reading the same record I’m reading. What more does he have to say
to be found suitable?” The AG replied the Board has discretion to make that determination under Shaputis II.
After that the AG had nothing relevant to say from my perspective. Marc had five minutes to rebut and quickly
pointed out that the first court order unequivocally stated Mr. Ferguson had ample insight, remorse and
responsibility for the crime. Again, Justice McConnell chimed in with something about the victim being fearful
of Mr. Ferguson. Marc responded that the victim lives on the East Coast and Mr. Ferguson is paroling on the
West Coast so how is that a factor? Then Justice McIntyre followed with, “Can’t the Board make a special
condition of parole that Mr. Ferguson be restrained from contact with the victim?” to which Marc replied
absolutely. Justice McDonald said nothing at all and appeared amused with the commentary. From my
perspective Mr. Ferguson should win 2-1. Seeing how all three Justices appear to be Irish, a court order issued
on March 17th
granting the petition would be the luck of the Irish! FYI, Ferguson is Scotish-Irish.
RED/GARY ECCHER MARC NORTON
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-5
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
The Law Office Of
JARED EISENSTAT
Representing
LIFERS Since 1997
Partial List of my Clients
who have received PAROLE
GRANTS in the LAST YEAR Contact Me for:
Lifer Hearings Joseph Kizler E06881
Javier Sanchez H31982
Writs Robert Montenegro C68745
Antonio Alagria E22372
Appeals Del Young E84771
David Grant D24654
Three Strike Petitions Luis Morales E70707
Frank Mata E27520
other Lifer Issues Canuto Garcia D05421
Jose Martinez H98897 Leonardo Rosas J28005 Dennis Canjura J73444 Keasuc Hill E37208
References Available Upon Request Hae Lee H22780 William Crawford H05871
“I would urge anyone needing legal representation to hire Mr. Eisenstat. His vigorous defense
salvaged a parole hearing that wasn’t going well. Mr. Eisenstat calmly refuted the deputy
district attorney’s baseless allegations and portrayed me in a favorable light. Mr. Eisenstat was
the difference between another three year denial and my freedom. A very satisfied client,
William G. Crawford.”
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-6
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
$IN RE ROY BUTLER; (3-5-14); #A137273; CA1/2;
PUBLISHED; LEXIS 2014 CAL.APP. 211 Overview: The Court of Appeal granted the writ of habeas corpus, vacated the Board’s decision, and ordered a
new parole-suitability hearing. The court held that the decision to deny parole did not meet due process
requirements. The decision reflected consideration of only two unsuitability factors. First, lack of sufficient
insight into the murder, was not supported by any evidence. There is no basis in law for denying parole because
of a less than perfect articulation of insight that a prisoner has unquestionably achieved. It was unclear whether
the Board would have denied parole based only on the second reason (parole plans), given that the Board
directly related its concerns to its improper analysis on lack of insight, that the decision did not reflect
individualized consideration of all the relevant facts and factors, and that it included a flawed analysis of the
sufficiency of the parole plans. Further, the court doubted the Board would have denied parole based only on
parole plans, given the absence of any regulatory unsuitability factors and all of the suitability factors that
weighed in Butler's favor, including his long history without violence and his having already served more than
23 for a crime whose base term was as low as 16 and no more than 21 years. Relevant Facts: Butler pled
guilty to second degree murder in 1988 for his participation in the slaying of a man who had repeatedly,
physically abused two other people. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life. The Board
has found him unsuitable for parole five times since he first became eligible in 1998. The most recent denial in
2012 was based on the dual grounds that he lacked insight into the murder and sufficient parole plans. The
Board’s first reason for denying parole was Butler's purported lack of insight into his life crime. They cited his
failure to adequately articulate the insights it was sure he had achieved. The Butler Court found the opposite
as follows. “The record is full of evidence that Butler had good insight into the life crime. As indicated by our
review of the record above, the five psychologists who evaluated Butler from 1991 to 2011 reported they were
satisfied that he had gained, and expressed, sufficient insights into his life crime. The latest psychologist to
interview Butler, Dr. Thacker, reported that since 1988, he had repeatedly, consistently taken responsibility and
expressed remorse for the crime. Dr. Thacker thought Butler ‘appeared to accept his role in the life crime,’ did
not minimize it, and, when he worked with correctional officers rather than engage in inappropriate tasks at the
urging of a group of prisoners, demonstrated ‘a change of his mindset toward authorities. Dr. Thacker also
concluded Butler had ‘spent time and energy exploring and attempting to understand the motivating factors in
the crime,’ and had ‘developed good insight’ into them. Butler discussed ‘his immaturity and ignorance as
factors influencing his involvement in the crime’ and, ‘[w]hen asked what factors would help keep him out of
trouble in the future, he responded ‘the way I think now … more productive, positive … not dysfunctional …
mature … I set goals and surround myself with people doing the same thing … my maturity.’ Dr. Thacker wrote
that Butler's ‘good insight’ into the motivating factors in the crime ‘included his tendency to go along with other
people and his general level of immaturity, his association with antisocially minded individuals, his antisocial
mindset in this situation … , as well as his antisocial mindset which included believing that police were not
helpful and, in fact could be harmful … .’ Further, the parties have stipulated as part of the settlement that ‘in a
comprehensive risk assessment of petitioner, dated September 26, 2011, Dr. S. Thacker concluded that ‘Butler
presented with good insight into his past criminal/violent behavior.’” The Butler Court found specifically that
“the Board’s decision does not indicate that it considered any of this evidence. Indeed, its decision indicates it
did not actually conclude that he lacked insight, but instead merely wanted him to further articulate it. Presiding
Commissioner Peck stated about Butler's insight into why he committed the crime: ‘I'm sure you recognize it,
but I would have liked not only for you to recognize it but to articulate it.’ (Italics added.) The Board’s
reasoning is baffling. There is no basis in law for denying parole because of a less than perfect articulation of
insight that a prisoner has unquestionably achieved.” Continued Page 12
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-7
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
FOR RENT.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADVERTISE
IN THE ECC NEWSLETTER PLEASE
CONTACT US FOR RATES BY EMAIL,
PHONE OR ADDRESS LISTED WITHIN.
BENJAMIN RAMOS Law Office of Benjamin Ramos
705 E. Bidwell, Suite 2-359
Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 358-9842 Writs Challenging Parole Denial/Governor Reversal¸
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
Eccher & Chandler Consulting (ECC) Newsletter is
published to provide everything from A to Z in prison
news from pre-post-conviction, to parole and life
thereafter. Our specialty is indeterminate life sentences.
In short, LIFERS-R-US, however, we help everyone
regardless. The ECC is not intended as legal advice, but
provides prison legal news, articles, comments, and the
like. This information is the opinion of the Editors of the
ECC, unless otherwise indicated. We are not attorneys.
The ECC is authored, published, and circulated by Gary
Eccher and Keith Chandler the partners in Eccher &
Chandler Consulting, P.O. Box 50106, Irvine, CA 92619.
Gary Eccher (AKA, Red or Reddog) a former lifer who
obtained his parole through the courts after successfully
litigating his own case against the Board of Parole
Hearings (Board) and Governor. Gary/Red obtained two
paralegal degrees while incarcerated and worked for
approximately 10-years in the law library at Old Folsom.
He also worked for approximately 10-years as a
disciplinary clerk at Old Folsom and Avenal. During
Gary/Red’s prison term, he helped many lifers obtain
their freedom through the courts or by consulting with
them on strategy to be employed during their parole
hearings. A list of 34-granted writs of habeas corpus
follows. 15-guys released.
Jimmie Sole (2001) Sonoma County (Cty.) v. Board
Javier Cortinas (2002) Santa Clara Cty. v. Board
David “Benny” Taylor (2003) Santa Clara Cty. v. Board
released 1-2004
$Miguel “Rooster” Martin (2004) Sacramento Cty. v.
Board (Restraint Policy Ruled Underground Reg.)
$Gary Eccher (2004) Orange Cty. v. Board
$Gary Eccher (2007) Orange Cty. v. Board
$Julian Moreno (2008) L.A. Cty. v. Governor released 1-
2009 $Paul Gaul (2009) CA2/7 v. Board 170 Cal.App.4
th 20
released 2-2010
Onesimo Haro (2009) Santa Clara Cty. v. Board
$Maurice (Mo) Williams (2009) L.A. Cty. v. Board
released 4-2012
$Gary Eccher (2009) Orange Cty. v. Board
$Hassan Cromwell (2009) L.A. Cty. v. Governor
released 10-2009
$Luis Ayala (2009) CA2 v. Governor released 11-2009
$Donald Furtado (2009) Santa Clara Cty. v. Board
$Luis Espinosa Morales (2009) Ventura Cty. v. Board
Granted From Informal Response Order
$Jesse Martinez (2009) E.D.Cal. v. Governor
$Jesse Martinez (2010) L.A. Cty v. Governor released 2-
2011
$Arnold Trevino (2010) E.D.Cal. v. Governor released 4-
2011
$Gary Eccher (2010) Orange Cty. v. Board
$Scott Breverman (2010) L.A. Cty. v. Board
$Timothy Casey (2010) L.A. Cty. v. Board released 2-
2011
$Mark Jeffery Jones (2010) L.A. Cty. v. Governor
$Mario Estrada (2010) E.D.Cal. v. Board
$Javier Pacheco (2010) C.D.Cal. v. Governor
$Donald Furtado (2010) Santa Clara v. Governor
$Ismael Rivero (2010) E.D.Cal. v. Board
$Javier Pacheco (2010) L.A. Cty. v. Governor released
11-2010
$Gary Eccher (2011) Orange Cty. v. Governor
$Thanh Nguyen (2011) Orange Cty. v. Board
$Mark Jeffery Jones (2011) CA2/5 v. Governor released
6-2011
$Donald Furtado (2011) CA6 v. Governor released 10-
2011 $Derrick Taylor (2011) L.A. Cty. v. Governor released
11-2011
$Scott Breverman L.A. Cty. v. Board (about matrix)
released 3-2012
$Gary Eccher (2012) CA4/3 v. Governor released 6-2012
Keith Chandler was released from Folsom Prison via
Federal Court Order in 2004 after serving 21 years (the
last 9 unconstitutionally) for second degree murder. Once
exposed to the injustices of the prison and parole systems,
Keith became a zealous advocate for change, working
nearly his entire term in the DVI and Old Folsom Law
Libraries, helping hundreds of inmates through the years.
Upon release, Keith serves as a political and legal
consultant for many clients, but has predominately
worked with attorney Steve Sanders and Sanders &
Associates, a West Sacramento Law Firm specializing in
parole and politically sensitive litigation. Sanders &
Associates, with Keith in a lead role, managed the
corporation that controlled the 2004 Prop. 66 Campaign
which sought to reform the Three Strikes Law. Keith,
working with Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
(TIPS), was instrumental in litigation which blocked the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
from using 7 Billion Dollars of AB 900 prison
construction bonds for a two year period. Keith’s
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-9
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
political experience and grasp of the Three Strikes Law
found him working with FACTS and Stanford University
in the formative stages of Proposition 36, the 2012 effort
to reform Three Strikes. Keith’s consultation has resulted
in parole grants, reduced sentences, or outright release,
for dozens and dozens of inmates through the years.
Some of Keith’s meaningful cases are listed below:
Nick Swanson L.A. Cty. v. Gov. client released
Gil Fuentes S.D. Cty. v. Board initial parole hearing, 25
to life case, denied shooting, client released
$Robert Watson multiple habeas victories, S.D. Cty. and
CA4/1 v. Board and Governor client released
Manuel Cass multiple habeas victories, S.D. Cty. v. Board
and Governor client released
An Nguyen Orange Cty. v. Governor client released
K. Register E.D.Cal. inmate claims actual innocence
Paul Crowder four habeas victories, Orange Cty. and
CA4/3
PF Lazor Sonoma Cty. and CA6 v. Board, he had more
than 30-115’s, published 172 Cal.App.4th 1185
Mark Chandler Amador Cty. v. Board and Governor
client released
Jack McGarey multiple habeas victories, Sacramento Cty.
v. Board
Dale Crapo E.D.Cal. v. Board
Dave Bertagna E.D.Cal. v. Board, client released
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety (TIPS) v.
Schwarzenegger, was a lawsuit alleging AB 900’s 7-
billion dollars of prison construction bonds were an
unconstitutional manipulation of the lease-revenue bond
process. Initial victory in Sacramento County later
overturned, and ultimately the case was lost. See $TIPS v
Schwarzenegger (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 749.
Chandler v. Wilson, 9th
Circuit Court of Appeal. Keith
sued various government officials for his 9-years of
unconstitutional confinement based upon the Al Leddy
documented political conspiracy to rescind all prior grants
of parole in the early 1990’s by then Gov. Wilson. Even
though represented by counsel, Keith was granted the rare
privilege of orally arguing the case before the 9th Circuit
himself. All defendants were ultimately held to be
immune. See link on ECC website for oral argument.
BOARD & PSYCH PREP. Wouldn’t it be nice to know what to say to the Board
before your parole hearing? Eccher & Chandler
Consulting help lifers prepare for their parole
hearings. This is listed in our ad above as Board
Preparation. Preparing for your parole hearing is one
of the most critical stages in the fight for your
freedom. We have read hundreds of parole hearing
transcripts and see the errors that lifers make in their
parole hearings. In addition, we have gained
knowledge about what is actually needed for parole
plans, i.e., letters of support, relapse prevention
plans, and substance abuse meetings, etc. We also
have contacts for transitional housing in some cases.
More importantly, we help provide you with 10-15
answers that you need for those difficult questions on
an individual basis. We also review your last parole
hearing transcript, page by page, and show you in
writing where you made mistakes and how to
improve your answers next time. THIS IS
CRITICAL. Going into your parole hearing 99%
prepared is critical to your success during the hearing
in two major respects. First, you stand a better
chance in receiving a parole date. Second, if you are
denied, you have prepared a great record that a judge
is going to read and possibly grant your writ-petition
in court. These answers apply to psych also.
CURRENT TITLE 15 DIVISION II BOARD OF
PAROLE HEARINGS $10.00 OR 40-POSTAGE
STAMPS, (.49¢ OR FOREVER).
ECC PROVIDES TWO (2) COPIES OF STATE OR
FEDERAL CASE LAW, (40-PAGES OR LESS),
FOR $5.00 OR 20-POSTAGE STAMPS, (.49¢ OR
FOREVER). IN ADDITION, ANY CURRENT
JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORMS NEEDED CAN BE
PURCHASED AT THE SAME PRICE. ANY
OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU MIGHT
NEED CAN BE PURCHASED FROM ECC AT A
RATE OF (40-PAGES OR LESS), FOR $5.00 OR
20-POSTAGE STAMPS, (.49¢ OR FOREVER).
ECC MOTTO: “Most things in life are chimpanzee stuff, but every
once in a while you need a gorilla. That’s what we’re for.”
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-10
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (OSC) CORNER
AND INFORMAL RESPONSE (IR) ORDERS
This corner is intended to list OSC’s and IR’s across
the state to help keep hope alive for prisoners. If you
would like your OSC or IR listed in the ECC, just
send us a copy and short summary of the proceeding.
OSC’s and IR’s in bold type are the help of ECC.
MICHAEL CARL DEAKINS (OSC) (2011)
C.D.Cal. Criminal conviction actually innocent.
Waiting decision.
IN RE PAUL CROWDER (IR) (2012) 4/Dist.
Div.3, Governor’s Reversal. All briefing is complete.
We are still waiting for a decision in either one of
two actions pending before the 4th
District that could
free Moose.
IN RE KENNETH FERGUSON (OSC) (2013)
4/Dist. Div.1, Board’s denial following court order.
Marc Norton in conjunction with ECC.
IN RE DAVID ESTRADA (OSC) (2013) LA Cty. v.
Board. Congrats David.
IN RE ANDREW OTTON (OSC) (2013) 1/Dist.
Div. 3, v. Governor’s Reversal. Congrats Andrew.
IN RE RANDY COWELL (OSC) (2014) LA Cty.
v. Governor’s Reversal. Katera Rutledge in
conjunction with ECC.
IN RE GABRIEL SILVA (OSC) (2014) Orange
Cty. v. Board Rescission Hearing.
ECC is happy to announce that HENRY DEAN’s
BPH-1045A, Petition to Advance Parole Hearing,
that we worked on was granted. Congratulations
Henry, you earned it.
HELP KEEP HOPE ALIVE
If you would like to subscribe to the ECC
Newsletter, rates are $20.00 or 80-postage
stamps, (.49¢ or forever). One year
subscriptions are offered and include six
issues per year. Rates apply to everyone.
SINCE THE ADVENT OF $In re Shaputis II
(2011) 53 Cal.4th
192, THERE ARE AT LEAST
40-MUST KNOW CASES. STAY IN THE
GAME BY KNOWING ALL THE CASES.
$In re Gary Eccher 5-10-12 (ECC)
$In re Michael Adamar 7-2-12
$In re Frederick Davidson 7-20-12
$In re John Batie 7-20-12
$In re Mark Ouellette 7-23-12
$In re James Mackey 7-31-12
$In re Brian Montgomery 8-2-12
$In re Manolo Tolentino 8-6-12
$In re Saterial Thomas 8-13-12
$In re Harjot Takhar 8-28-12
$In re Arcadio Acuna 8-30-12
$In re Adam Sanchez 8-31-12
$In re George White 9-6-12
$In re Denise Shigemura 9-27-12
$In re Roger Sundberg 10-12-12
$In re James Grisso 10-23-12
$In re Donnell Jameison 10-25-12
$In re Steven C. Martinez 10-26-12
$In re Erika Schomberg 10-31-12
$In re Gilbert Coronel 11-6-12
$In re Hall 11-28-12
$In re Denham 12-6-12
$In re Ferguson 12-19-12
$Warden v. Sup.Ct. & Carpenter 12-20-12
$In re Gamez 12-21-12
$In re Stevenson 12-21-12
$In re Martin 3-1-13
$In re Vicks 3-4-13
$In re Gray 3-28-13
$In re Stoneroad 4-18-13
$In re Lizarraga 4-23-13
$In re Fowler 6-18-13 (ECC)
$In re Lockett 6-24-13
$In re Kang 7-16-13
$In re Kanuse 8-19-13
$In re Robert Morales 9-16-13
$In re Rudy Rodriguez 10-23-13
$In re Roy Butler 12-16-13
$Gilman v. Brown 2-27-14
$In re Roy Butler 3-5-14
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-11
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
GILMAN V. BROWN; (2-28-14) CAL. U.S. EASTERN DISTRICT COURT; No.
CIV. S-05-830 LKK/CKD; BLOCKBUSTER COURT DECISION MUST READ. This case is a certified class action for some California inmates serving terms of life imprisonment with the
possibility of parole. Gilman asserts that Propositions 9 and 89 have retrospectively increased their
punishments, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Proposition 9 amended
California law to, among other things, increase the time between parole hearings. (From 1-5-years to 3-15-
years.) The class challenging this Proposition consists of “all California state prisoners who have been
sentenced to a life term with the possibility of parole for an offense that occurred before November 4,
2008.” Proposition 89 amended the California Constitution to grant the Governor the authority to review parole
decisions of California’s Board of Parole Hearings (Board), regarding parole decisions of prisoners convicted of
murder. The class challenging this Proposition consists of “all California state prisoners who have been
sentenced to a life term with possibility of parole for an offense that occurred before November 8, 1988.” The Gilman Court found “that both Propositions, as implemented, have violated the ex post facto rights of the
class members.” The Gilman Court laid a very strong foundation of Ex Post Facto cases. They also laid a very
strong factual foundation in support that will be addressed here in pertinent part because this case is 58-pages
long. For example, “in the two-year period before Proposition 9 was implemented, January 2007 through
December 2008, the Board held approximately 6,550 parole suitability hearings for life prisoners. Parole was
granted in approximately 6.4% of the hearings. Continued Page 13
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-12
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
BUTLER CONTINUED: The Butler Court also found the “Board’s Decision Does Not Reflect
Individualized Consideration of all the Relevant Facts and Factors.” One of the best quotes from the Court
was, “Presiding Commissioner Peck began his announcement of the panel's decision by stating, ‘The Panel has
reviewed all information that was before us today in concluding the prisoner is not suitable for parole and would
pose a current unreasonable risk of dangerousness to society if released from prison. The finding is based on
weighing the considerations provided in the California Code of Regulations, title 15.’ He then discussed only ‘a
couple of things that concerned us,’ namely Butler's purported lack of insight and sufficient parole plans. Not a
word was spoken regarding any of the six factors tending to indicate unsuitability or the nine circumstances
tending to indicate suitability that are identified in [the regulations.] … “There can be no dispute that Butler did
not have a significant juvenile record, showed signs of remorse, lacked any significant history of violent crime,
had realistic parole plans, had marketable skills, and had engaged in institutional activities that indicated an
enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. … The Board’s pro forma references to the record and
the California Code of Regulations are woefully inadequate to establish that it gave individualized consideration
to all relevant facts and factors.” The Butler Court then proceeded to dismantle the Board’s parole plans
analysis. “First, the Board’s stated concerns about Butler's parole plans focused on whether or not he would be
a ‘success’ on parole. As we have discussed, Presiding Commissioner Peck told him the Board’s ‘first
responsibility’ was ‘to see you be a success story because, if you're not a success story, that don't bode too well
for us or any of the other lifers that are incarcerated because, believe me, every time somebody gets a date
they're under a microscope.’” This was improper because, “The essential question in deciding whether to grant
parole is whether the inmate currently poses a threat to public safety.” Furthermore, “The Board’s discussion
of Butler's ‘success’ did not include any rational nexus to current dangerousness, other than the Board’s
improper reliance on Butler's purported lack of insight, and we have not found one in the record. … Given the
Board’s obligation to consider all relevant facts and factors, and its particular concerns about Butler's parole
plans, it is inexplicable that its decision did not reflect a consideration of its discretionary authority to place
conditions on Butler's parole, and explain why exercise of it would not satisfy the Board’s concerns.” On any
interesting note, Butler did not have “current letters from his mother stating that he could live with her.” The
Butler Court found, “We have not found legal support for the proposition that unverified parole plans are alone
a ground for denying parole. … Indeed, the regulation simply requires ‘realistic plans for release’ or
‘marketable skills … .’ ” The Butler Court blew-up the Board’s last concern “about Butler's parole plans relied
significantly on improper speculation. A Board’s ‘conclusion that a life prisoner is currently dangerous and
therefore should be denied parole ‘must be supported by some evidence, not merely by a hunch or intuition.’ ’
Presiding Commissioner Peck said about the lack of a current letter of support from Butler's family that,
although he did not know why there was no letter, ‘there must be a problem.’ He also said he did not know if it
was ‘great’ for Butler to live with his mother because, although Butler had a ‘great relationship’ with her, living
with his mother ‘may not have always worked out so well in the past with you.’ However, the record indicates
Butler only lived with his mother for one year, when he was 17, years before he committed the life crime. The
Board did not find, and we have found no evidence in our review of the record, that doing so had anything to do
with his life crime, or that Butler living with his mother upon release would create a threat to public safety. The
Board should refrain from relying on such unsubstantiated hunches.” The Remedy: “Under the particular
circumstances of this case and guided by precedent, we conclude that we must grant the petition and remand the
matter to the Board for further proceedings because it is unclear the Board would have denied Butler parole
based on its proper consideration of his parole plans alone, after due consideration of all relevant facts and
factors.” CONGRATULATIONS ROY. ECC HOPES YOU GET YOUR WELL DESERVED PAROLE
DATE. KEEP UP THE FIGHT.
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-13
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
GILMAN CONTINUED: Of the cases in which parole was denied, two-thirds resulted in one- or two-year
deferrals; approximately 34.7 percent resulted in one-year deferrals and approximately 31.5 percent resulted in
two-year deferrals. In the two-year period after Proposition 9 was implemented, January 2009 through
December 2010, the Board held approximately 6,100 hearings. At those hearings, parole was granted in
approximately 17 percent of the cases. Of the cases in which parole was denied, approximately 48.4 percent
resulted in the lowest deferral possible under Proposition 9, three years. For the period 2007 to 2008, before the
passage of Proposition 9, the average deferral period for all life prisoners who were denied parole at their
hearing, was 2.3 years. Approximately 35% of those deferrals were for the minimum period allowed by law,
one year. An additional 32% of the deferrals were for two years. Following the passage of Proposition 9, the
average deferral periods for all life prisoners decided under the new law were as follows: 4.84 years in 2009;
5.11 years in 2010; 5.08years in 2011; 4.42 years in 2012. Almost 56% of those deferrals were for the
minimum period then allowed by law, three years.” Based on these facts the Gilman Court found, “The
evidence shows that the average deferral times for Proposition 9 class members has increased since the
implementation of that law.” “The evidence adduced at trial shows however, that the increased deferral periods
did not happen randomly, or only to those prisoners least likely to be granted parole. Rather, the evidence
shows that in the two years prior to Proposition 9, the Board imposed deferral periods of one or two years on
two-thirds of all the prisoners who were denied parole. These are the prisoners who are the most likely to be
paroled within a year or two. That is because the statute in effect at the time contemplated that the Board would
grant deferrals of one or two years only when there was a reasonable expectation that the prisoner would be
ready for parole within that time.” “However, if the statute had any meaning, and the Board applied the statute
as written, then it is a reasonable inference that there existed a reasonable expectation that those prisoners would
be paroled within the following year or two, if they could get to a parole hearing during that time. Cont. Pg. 14
SERENA FAYE SALINAS, ATTORNEY AT LAW Providing Full-Scope and Limited-Scope Legal
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
GILMAN CONTINUED: Yet, under Proposition 9, these same prisoners cannot get to a hearing before at least
three years, the new minimum deferral period.” The Gilman Court next went into “a somewhat detailed
description” about the In re Rutherford case, (Cal. Marin County). They cited about 30-paragraphs of facts in
support. [In re Lugo was substituted in as class representative after Mr. Rutherford died.] In part, “a subset of
the class certified in Rutherford is representative of the Proposition 9 class” certified in Gilman. In short,
Rutherford was a case about not receiving timely parole hearings prior to Proposition 9, which the Board
stipulated too. The parties agreed on a remedial plan to reduce the backlog of parole hearings. However, when
Proposition 9 was implemented, life prisoners were still having their parole hearings delayed beyond the dates
when they should by law. Because of this “timeliness problem” the subset of the Rutherford class arose
because they “should have their parole hearings conducted under the old law.” [Meaning 1-5-year denials.]
Hence, another stipulation was entered into by the parties for “all qualifying Rutherford subset members who
should have had their parole hearings conducted before December 15, 2008, under the old law, were granted
hearings governed by the old law even if those hearings occurred after the implementation of Proposition 9.”
Some of the Rutherford subset stipulated to denials under Proposition 9 and were afforded the time guidelines
under the oldlaw. [Meaning a 3-year denial was reduced to 1-year; a 5-year denial was reduced to 2-years, etc.]
Doctors. Barry Krisberg and Stephen Kline were qualified to testify experts on criminology, sociology and
statistics. “Dr. Krisberg opined that there was no systematic bias in the Rutherford subset.” “Dr. Klein
disagreed with Dr. Krisberg that the Rutherford subset was unbiased, or was representative of the plaintiff class
as a whole.” The Gilman Court found “that Dr. Klein’s testimony does not really bear on the question before
the court, namely, whether Proposition 9 created a “significant risk” of longer incarceration.” The Gilman
Court concluded “that the Rutherford subset is representative of the Proposition 9 class as a whole. The
evidence submitted on this matter shows that the Rutherford subset is distinguished from the Proposition 9 class
only by the accident of when their parole hearings were scheduled on the calendar. There is no evidence that
the case characteristics are different between the two groups. There is no evidence that something about the
accident of calendaring was anything other than an accident of the calendar. For example, there is no evidence
that only those most or least likely to be paroled moved into the Rutherford subset. Rather, the evidence is clear
that the Rutherford subset came into existence because the Board had a backlog that applied to all life prisoners,
not any particular subset of them based upon any case characteristics. Dr. Klein’s speculation on possible
differences in case characteristics is therefore a red herring, especially since Dr. Klein, who presumably had
access to the central files of the class as well as the Rutherford group, did not identify a single case
characteristic that distinguished the two groups. The court therefore finds that plaintiffs have properly
buttressed their showing that Proposition 9 actually did create a significant risk that their incarcerations would
be lengthened.” Next, the Gilman Court addressed the BPH 1045A Petition to Advance Hearing process. They
cited 19-paragraphs of facts. Some of the more glaring facts were, “During the period from January 1, 2009
through December 31, 2010, there were 119 petitions to advance filed by prisoners. Of those, 114
(approximately 96%) were denied; 106 (approximately 93%) were summarily denied and eight (approximately
7%) were denied following a full review. From 2009 to June 2012, the Board has not exercised its discretion to
advance a hearing absent a prisoner filing a petition to advance.” “The (BPH 1045A) form instructs the
prisoner to list the changed circumstances or new information that “show a reasonable likelihood that
consideration of the public and victim’s safety does not require the additional period of incarceration” that was
set at the last parole suitability hearing.” The prisoner first had to assert that there was “new information” or a
“change in circumstances” without regard to any showing or assertion of suitability. The parties directed the
Gilman Court’s attention to several examples of the petition to advance process. Some of the examples point to
cases where advanced hearings were granted or denied, and appear to show that the Continued Page 16
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-15
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
REENTRY MYTH BUSTER? This Myth Buster is one in a series of fact sheets intended to clarify
existing federal policies that affect formerly incarcerated individuals and their families.
MYTH: The Federal Government’s hiring policies prohibit employment of people with criminal records.
FACT: The Federal Government does not have a policy that precludes employment of people with criminal
records from all positions. The Federal Government employs people with criminal records with the requisite
knowledge, skills and abilities. Consistent with Merit System Principles, agencies are required to consider
people with criminal records when filling positions if they are the best candidates and can comply with
requirements. Individuals seeking admission to the civil service must undergo an investigation to establish
suitability or fitness for employment. The principal issues for agencies as they consider hiring people with
criminal records involve making determinations related to: (1) An individual’s character traits and conduct to
determine whether employment would or would not protect the integrity and promote the efficiency of the
service. (2) Whether employment of the individual in the department or agency is consistent with the interests
of national security. (3) The nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the individual’s criminal activity, and
whether there has been rehabilitation or efforts toward rehabilitation. People with criminal records are eligible
to work in the vast majority of federal jobs. For a few positions, they may not be deemed suitable or fit for the
job, depending on the crime committed. (4) A handful of federal laws, like those prohibiting treason, carry with
them a lifetime ban on federal employment. (5) Others, like the criminal statute for inciting a riot, prohibit
federal employment for a certain number of years. (6) Previous criminal conduct could potentially render an
individual incompatible with the core duties of the job. (7) Previous criminal conduct may also affect an
individual’s eligibility for a security clearance, depending on the level of clearance being sought and the nature
of the conviction. Excepted (Schedule A) Appointing Authority permits employment of individuals in work-
release programs when a local recruiting shortage exists. (8) Allows agencies, with OPM approval, to employ
inmates of federal and state correctional institutions. (9) Appointments limited to one year.
For More Information: Regarding Federal Regulations, visit: www.gpo.gov/fdsys.
For Suitability Determinations Criteria, search under 5 CFR 731.202.
For Excepted Service Disqualifying Factors, search under 5 CFR 302.203.
Regarding the Bond Amendment, visit: http://www.dss.mil/about_dss/press_room/2009/bond_amendment.pdf.
Regarding Federal Background Investigations, visit: http://www.opm.gov/investigate.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADVERTISE IN THE ECC NEWSLETTER PLEASE
CONTACT US FOR RATES BY EMAIL, PHONE OR ADDRESS LISTED WITHIN.
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
GILMAN CONTINUED: The Gilman Court found,
“Several examples show that even when the Board
decides a case under an apparently reasonable
interpretation of Proposition 9 and the implementing
regulations, the advance hearing process can be
rendered meaningless or illusory. The most
profound failure of this process is in the Board’s
apparent interpretation of the statute authorizing
advance petitions. The statute provides that the
inmate may request an advance hearing by
submitting a petition that sets forth ‘the change in
circumstances or new information that establishes a
reasonable likelihood that consideration of the public
safety does not require the additional period of
incarceration of the inmate.’ A sensible
interpretation of this authorization is that the ‘change
in circumstances or new information’ is tied to the
question of suitability for parole. However, some
examples identified by plaintiffs show that the Board
has interpreted the authorization in a way that
separates the ‘change in circumstances or new
information’ from the question of suitability. Rather,
the Board requires a showing of ‘change in
circumstances or new information’ before it will
even consider the question of suitability for parole.
This is a problem first because the most fundamental
change in circumstances would be a move from
unsuitability to suitability. But as the examples
show, that is apparently not a change in
circumstances that will satisfy the Board. Second,
when this requirement is spun off from the suitability
requirement, it imposes an additional substantive
burden on the prisoner’s ability to obtain parole.
This is not a harmless procedural change. This is a
change that says that the prisoner must now show
something that he never had to show before, namely,
this amorphous ‘change in circumstances or new
information.’” Plaintiffs directed the Gilman Court’s
attention to several examples of BPH 1045A cases,
i.e., Brodheim, Nguyen, Killingsworth, and
Mendoza. In Brodheim, “this court granted
Brodheim’s habeas corpus petition…” The Board
held a new hearing and found Brodheim suitable.
However, Swarthout v. Cooke overturned
Brodheim’s federal habeas corpus grant. The Board
vacated the parole grant immediately for three years.
Brodheim filed a BPH 1045 and cited the Board’s
parole grant as the “new information” or “change in
circumstances.” The Board summarily denied him.
Killingsworth was denied parole based on the
psychologist’s evaluation but there was no way for
him to get a new evaluation before he filed his BPH
1045A. “Killingsworth’s advance hearing petition
made it past the preliminary review stage. At the full
review stage, the petition was denied, for the
following reasons: I/M Killingsworth is to be
commended for his additional/continued
participation in self-help programming and
disciplinary free behavior. The panel’s concerns
with the psychiatric evaluation completed by Dr.
Smith in August 2008 indicating that he presents a
moderate risk of violence are still valid.” (ARE
YOU KIDDING ME) “Mendoza’s advance hearing
petition made it past the preliminary review stage.
At the full review stage, the petition was denied
because some of the documents the prisoner
submitted were in Spanish, and the decision-maker
therefore could not determine whether the standard
had been met until the documents were translated.”
(NO WAY) The Gilman Court concluded “The
evidence shows that the advance hearing process
sometimes works and sometimes does not work.”
“All told, the PTA process is not sufficient to protect
inmates from the ex post facto problems inherent in
Proposition 9.” PROPOSITION 89. “On
November 4, 1988, California voters approved
Proposition 89, which granted the Governor the
ability to reverse the decisions of the parole board
regarding prisoners convicted of murder.
“Proposition 89 is neutral on its face, allowing the
Governor to reverse parole grants and denials alike.
However, its intent was stated to be to give the
Governor ‘the power to block the parole of convicted
murderers.’” After citing 13-paragraphs of facts, one
being, “The Executive Reports show that in the
twenty-year period from 1991 through 2010, the
Governor reversed more than 70 percent of the grants
of parole made to prisoners with Cont. Next Page
ECC NEWSLETTER #11 MARCH 2014
JUSTICE FOR ALL
Page-17
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
GILMAN CONTINUED: murder convictions.”
The Gilman Court found “Proposition 89 violates the
Ex Post Facto Clause,” based on “the evidence
presented at trial, it is clear that Proposition 89, in
actual practice, is not the ‘neutral’ transfer of final
decision-making authority from one decision-maker
to another. In practice the governors have used it to
tip the scales against parole. Every governor since
passage of Proposition 89 has done this, and there is
no evidence that this practice has stopped. Thus,
while the governors could use the law to review
parole decisions to ensure that they are accurate and
fair, they appear to have no such concern about
decisions that deny parole. Prior to the new law, the
sentence faced by class members was life with the
possibility of parole. The parameters for determining
the grant or denial of parole was fixed in the statutes,
and the length of the ‘life term’ was fixed in the
Board’s regulations. The new law was passed in
order to lengthen the amount of time class members
would spend in prison by creating a new mechanism
for withholding parole, namely, the governor’s veto.
True to the law’s intentions, California governors
have used the new law to withdraw the possibility of
parole from most class members. In short, the voters
did not simply switch the final decision-making
authority from the Board to the Governor. They
switched it with an instruction that the Governor
should put his finger on the scale to correct a
‘weakness’ they perceived to exist when the Board
made the final decision, namely, too many murderers
being paroled, too soon. The governors have carried
out the people’s will by putting their fingers on the
scale and reversing 70% of parole grants for these
HELPING EVERYONE REGARDLESS ECC; P.O. BOX 50106; IRVINE, CA 92619 $ means these court orders are available to purchase for U.S. currency or stamps. See last page for details.
Eccher & Chandler Consulting
P.O. Box 50106
Irvine, CA 92619
SERVICES: If you would like to subscribe to the ECC Newsletter, rates are $20.00 or 80-postage stamps,
(.49¢ or forever). One year subscriptions are offered and include six issues per year. Rates apply to everyone.
ECC provides two (2) copies of state or federal case law, (40-pages or less), for $5.00 or 20-postage stamps,
(.49¢ or forever). In addition, any documents mentioned in ECC with a $-symbol are also available.
Any current judicial council forms needed by you can be purchased, (40-pages or less), for $5.00 or 20-postage
stamps, (.49¢ or forever).
Current Title 15 Division II Board of Parole Hearings $10.00 or 40-postage stamps, (.49¢ or forever).
LIFE IN LIMBO, (by Stanford Criminal Justice Center) an examination of parole release for prisoners serving
life sentences with the possibility of parole in California is $5.00 or 20-postage stamps, (.49¢ or forever).
Any other information that you might need can be purchased from ECC at a rate of (40-pages or less), for $5.00
or 20-postage stamps, (.49¢ or forever).
ECC seeks your input or inquiries, regarding habeas corpus, Board, Governor, CDC, criminal matters,
sentencing errors, plea bargains, IAC, civil matters, family matters, Board preparations, BPH-1045(A) or
CDC-602s. Based on the amount of correspondence, replies are not guaranteed.
