parole board denials and some of the factors …
TRANSCRIPT
PAROLE BOARD DENIALS AND SOME OF THE
FACTORS CONSIDERED FOR THE PAROLE BOARD
IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO
In order to find out how and the reasons why the Nevada Parole Board is not
paroling more inmates to their next consecutive sentence and or to the street we need to
drill down into the Parole Board to find out these answers.
The unchecked discretionary power of the NV Parole Board is the main issue that
has created the mass incarceration industry that exists in Nevada. Until the legislature
takes responsibility for mandatory minimum sentencing laws and the NV Parole Board’s
actions by creating mandatory statuary language for the release of prisoners plus defined
timed release mechanisms that set specific release time in law, mass incarceration will
perpetuate.
Parole Board denials result in inmates serving more time and costing the taxpayers
millions of dollars each year. We need to look at the following to have a better
understanding for the denials and ways to fix the problems so that the Parole Board will
grant more paroles and save the taxpayers millions of dollars per year.
If you take a look at Attachments I have provided to you it will answer some of
questions and concerns that have been raised during the ACAJ committee hearings.
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INMATES FILES;
NOTIS File aka Nevada Offender Tracking Information System – Attachment 1
This files contains the Inmates Summary from the time the inmate enters the Department
of Corrections and when the inmate leaves the Department of Corrections.
NOTIS reflects the inmate’s “Offense in Custody History”, “Result of Offense”,
“External Movement History”, “Move Type”, “Move Reason”, “prior felony
convictions/hold & detainers”, “Case Notes”.
The “Case Notes” would include the following;
Disciplinary charges, hearings and decisions, investigations, Inspector General’s Office
investigation, Grievances, Parole and Release information, telephone communications
between the inmate and their attorney, telephone communications between the inmate’s
pro se class action litigation with other pro se inmate Plaintiff s, religious practices,
education, programming, charitable fundraisers, health and medical history, enemy list.
It should be noted that when NOTIS was installed on June 5, 2007 for some unknown
reason the NOTIS documents begin with year 01/14/1999, thereby, missing the previous
IF THE RISK IS LOW ---- LET THEM GO
10 years of Mr. Klein’s incarceration. Why? And WHAT does “RESTRICTED CASE
NOTES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS REPORT” mean and why are they
removed?
It is uncertain at this time if other inmates NOTIS files are similar to Mr. Klein’s NOTIS
file and if the information that is favorable or unfavorable to the inmate is missing, too.
It should be noted that there appears to be ongoing problems with NOTIS
http://parole.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/parolenvgov/content/Information/Q3-
FY2015_Jan-Mar.pdf Board of Parole Commissioners
Quarterly Report January 1, 2015 – March 31, 2015 (Q3 – FY15)
Page 14
“The NDOC NOTIS database was not available at the time of the hearing
or a database issue resulted in a lack of access to information necessary to
conduct the hearing or make an action recommendation.”
NOTIS Inmate Issue History - Attachment 2
This file contains “Issue ID”, “Date Reported”, “Issue Type”, Issue Reason”, inmate’s
grievances, Settlement Agreements,
It should be noted that NOTIS begins with year 02/05/1999, thereby, missing the
previous 10 years of Mr. Klein’s incarceration.
Inmate I-files – Attachment 3
This file contains Parole Board confidential information, PSI reports which are prepared
for the original Court that follow the inmate throughout their entire prison sentence and
are nearly impossible to correct, dispute or change, Parole and Probation Data, Physic
Panel, and the entire history of the inmate while incarcerated.
Confidential Files- These files are completely confidential and the inmate is not able
to access any information to check for accuracies. Unless the inmate has pending
litigation against the state and the court has ordered confidential information to be turned
over, then and only then will the inmate see his file.
Inspector general Files – Attachment 4
These files are completely confidential. At times the Investigative Reports are not
followed through to the end. When this happens, irreparable harm to the inmate and
others connected to the investigation result in punishment being imposed.
IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO
At times when this happens the inmate will file litigation against NDOC and the inmate
will then have access to his files.
NOTIS INMATE GRIEVANCE REPORT; Attachment 5
Grievances are filed by Inmates. The inmate’s grievances will go through a process by a
member of the Nevada Department of Corrections. If the inmate loses he can appeal to a
higher level and at times will take their grievance to court for violation of their protected
rights. This information is provided to the Parole Board, however, the litigation brought
against NDOC is not given to the Parole Board, nor the final judgment if the inmates win.
Grievances procedures fall under the Administrative Regulation 740 that is set by the
Nevada Board of Prison Commissioners.
DISCIPLINARY; Attachments 6, 1
Inmates can be disciplined and disciplinary actions can be imposed.
a. Disciplinary actions can result in such things as being transferred to
another institution, being placed in segregated Unit, being locked up in
isolation, denied visitation, and credits that are used towards an early
parole hearing(s) to be taken away. Disciplinary actions can lead to
litigation.
b. Retaliatory behavior by NDOC employees can result in Disciplinary
actions without proper Due Process.
c. Disciplinary actions are factored in when determining to grant or deny a
parole.
d. Untrained officers, retaliatory behavior by NDOC Staff, are a major
concern for the need of a NDOC Independent Ombudsman.
e. To reduce the amount of monies the taxpayer is paying for litigation to
defend these types of lawsuits filed by the inmate(s) is a major concern for
the taxpayer.
LITIGATION; Attachment 7
The inmate can file a suit against the NDOC and its employees for what he or she
believes violated their protected rights
a. The grievances and disciplinary actions against the inmate remain in the
NDOC and NOTIS files and then are submitted to the Parole Board.
IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO
b. An inmate who files suit against NDOC and wins; the outcome is not
reflected in the NDOC or NOTIS files that are submitted to the Parole
Board.
c. Breach of Settlement Agreement and ongoing litigation are not reflected in
the NDOC or NOTIS files that are submitted to the Parole Board.
RETALIATION; Attachment 8 At times some NDOC employees will retaliate
against an inmate or inmates for filing suit against them or somebody they personally
know.
Some NDOC employees will retaliate against an inmate just to cause problems for the
inmate.
a. NDOC and its employee’s retaliation can result in a transfer of an inmate
to another institution, being placed in segregated Unit, being locked up in
isolation, losing their jobs, loss of their credits to an early parole hearing,
having their religious protected property destroyed, denied visitation from
their loved ones and their attorney, and interference with receiving their
medical treatment.
SEGREGATION; Attachment 9
Inmates who are placed in a NDOC segregated Unit for the following reasons will lose
credit time and this can play a factor in Parole Board denials. Removed to after in
a. Transfers
b. Enemy List
c. Retaliation by NDOC staff
d. Court order
e. Investigation(s)
f. Disciplinary sanctions
g. Medical treatment
h. refused to sign a waiver
MEDICAL; Inmates who are normally incarcerated at the Northern Nevada
Correctional Center, or are transferred from another Institution for medical treatment to
IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO
the Regional Medical Facility located at NNCC, or have on going medical problems and
cannot go out into the general population are placed in a NDOC segregated Unit.
a. These Inmates do not receive any credit(s) to be used towards an early
parole Board hearing that is normally afforded to other inmates who are
not in need of medical treatment. These Inmates serve day per day for
simply needing medical treatment.
COMPUTER GLITCH; Attachment 10, Attachment 13
On June 5, 2007 the NDOC NOTIS software was installed and when it was installed it
“flipped” and placed false felony charges in inmates files. This information was
disseminated to the Parole Board and Pardons Board and still remains and is
unbeknownst to the inmate.
a. check for accuracies and question the inmate about any new felony
charges after they have entered the prison system that appears in the
NDOC NOTIS files. Ask questions about any disciplinary charges and
see if the inmate has litigation pending and the result of any litigation.
b. Allow the inmate to introduce evidence that disputes any of the new
charges or disciplinary charges against them. .
c. check for any false Information in NDOC inmate PSI Report, “I” File
(Institutional File), “C” File (Central File), Confidential File and NOTIS:
d. Correct and Remove all false and inaccurate documents still remaining in
the inmate files, Inspector General, parole board and Pardons Board Files,
e. Define specifically the deadly weapon used in the PSI report. Take out the
extra words
PAROLE AND PARDONS: REPORT REQUIREMENTS ; Attachment 11,
Attachment 17, Attachment 18,
http://doc.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/docnvgov/content/About/Administrative_Regulatio
ns/AR%20537%20-%20052010.pdf Nevada Department of Corrections
Administrative Regulations 537.02. The Parole Board has held a parole hearing(s)
when no Progress Report and Related Release Documents have been submitted to the
Parole Board, the inmate is then seen in absentia and the inmate is denied a parole.
Parole Board violates inmate’s Due Process, by the Parole Board retaliating against
inmate because of prior suits against them. This leads to litigation.
PSYCH PANEL; Attachment 12 remove be between to and grant 4th
line below
IF THE RISK IS LOW—LET THEM GO
Nevada Department of Corrections Administrative Regulation 537.03 Prior to the
Legislative removal of the Psych Panel an Inmate who was convicted of a sexual offense
must pass the Psych Panel. The inmate must be certified that they have passed the Psych
Panel in order for the Parole Board to (-be) grant their Parole. The Psych Panel decision
is submitted to the Parole Board. The Psych Panel report still exists in the inmates file.
The Psych Panel has raised Risk Assessment to a higher level because of the inmate’s
refusal to attend the evaluation based on his litigation.
a. It is common knowledge that an inmate who has maintained their
innocence must admit guilt in order to pass the Psych Panel. This forces
an innocent person to make a false confession in order to get a chance at
their freedom.
b. If an inmate is appealing their criminal conviction and their conviction is
overturned, this could be detrimental to any future new trial they have
been granted by the court, because , they have now made a false
confession to the Psych Panel in order to seek their freedom through the
Parole Board and the prosecution can use it.
c. Remove the inmate’s certification(s) that he or she has passed the Psych
Panel from the Parole Board and Pardons Board files.
d. Removal all notes, and all information regarding any decisions that pertain
to the inmate appealing their conviction from the Parole Board’s file on
the inmate.
INMATE’S CONCERNS REGARDING PAROLE BOARD DENIALS WHEN
THEIR PREVIOUS PAROLE WAS GRANTED TO THEIR NEXT
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE, THEY CONTINUE TO IMPROVE , ARE
DISCIPLINARY FREE, A MODEL PRISONER AND ARE NOW BEING
DENIED A PAROLE WITH THE FOLLOWING REASONS! Attachment 13,
Attachment 7
a. Inmate has not completed his programming,
b. Is a threat to society.
c. based on new information,
d. “has an Appeal pending” 2007 AB 510.
IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO
e. The seriousness of the offense,“nature of crime”, and “abnormal nature of
crime”
f. Psych Panel changed the inmate’s risk assessment to a high risk to re-
offend.
g. was not certified by the Psych Panel when previously certified and nothing
has warranted not to be certified.
h. life sentence w/parole- denied to EXPIRATION aka when inmate dies
h. June 5, 2007 computer glitch and the “NDOC NOTIS database was not
available at the time of the hearing or a database issue resulted in a lack of
access to information necessary to conduct the hearing or make an action
recommendation.” Tab ?? pg. 14 Board of Parole Commissioners Quarterly
Report January 1, 2015- March 31, 2015 (Q3-FY15)
AGGREGATED SENTENCES - Attachment 14
VICTIM(S) verses INMATES RIGHT TO RECEIVE A FAIR PAROLE
HEARING. Attachment 15 . CREW BROTHERS’ INFORMATION
Victim’s Testimony: a. Inmates who have victim opposition appearing at their Parole Board Hearings
are more likely to be denied parole than inmates who do not.
b. Victim’s are instructed by the Parole Board in writing, how to have a private
meeting with the Board and keep their testimony and documents secret. (15-1)
(Parole Board Letter to victim and family)
c. During parole hearings if the victim, family or friends request time to speak,
the hearing room is cleared including the inmate. The victim’s testimony,
given directly to the Board without the inmate’s knowledge or any oversight,
opens the door to the possibility the parole board’s decision may be based on
false testimony that the inmate or his representative have no opportunity to
refute resulting in an unfair parole hearing.
d. Transparency has been extinguished for parole hearings especially regarding
victim testimony and documents because the Board claims NOT to be under
quasi-judicial standards or the Open Meeting Law. In Witherow (Pgs. 1, 14
and 15) the NV Supreme Court (NSC) provided four required practices and
proceedures of Quasi-Judicial Standards:
1. the ability to present and object to evidence
2.. the ability to cross examine witnesses
3. a written decision from the public body
4. an opportunity to appeal to a higher authority
e. Witherow, (Id. Pg. 16) NSC states,”. . .because the parole hearing does not
IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO
afford each party the minimum . . .[four quasi-judicial standards]”. . . .
“. . . a parole board hearing is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the Board
must comply with the open meeting law when conducting such hearings.”
THEN the parole board was declared to be Quasi-Judicial by the NV
Legislature. In so doing the law was established that the Quasi-Judicial \
standards setforth in Witherow should apply as standard procedures for Parole
Board Hearings.
BUT WAIT the NV Parole Board fails to follow any of the standards established by the
NSC regarding quasi-judicial government bodies. The Board claims they are quasi-
judicial in name only and entitled to disregard the quasi-judicial standards in their
day-to-day operation and parole hearings. The Board also has claimed exclusion from
following the Open Meeting Law which applies to all other state agencies and boards;
except the legislature and judicial divisions of government. Prior to 2001 the Parole
Board operated under the Open Meeting Law. The Board changed their Operating
Procedure Manual in 2001 without any legislative direction, labeling themselves
“open and public” in its operation including parole hearings. After five legislative
sessions of PB Analysis David Smith testifying repeatedly, the Parole Board was exempt
from the O.M.L., Assemblyman and Judicial Committee Chair Bernie Anderson told
Smith during one of Smith’s testimonies, “We are not going to codify what you [Parole
Board] are doing.” The NSC has rendered many decisions changing positions on how the
Board is to operate. Now, the Board leans on its interpretation of NRS 213 to justify its
actions of being the ONLY Board (agency) in NV exempt from both the quasi-judicial
standards and the Open Meeting Law. The Parole Board of NV is not TRANSPARENT
and answers to no-one except the Governor every four years when their reappointment is
almost always renewed without any visible questioning.
The inmate has no way of knowing and is unable to defend him or herself from any false
and inaccurate information that has been provided to the Parole Board by the victim(s).
Parole Board Oversight committee
Parole Board’s Guidelines: ATTACHMENT 16 CREW BROTHERS INFO
a. The current Board’s Guidelines contain the recommendation to “Consider
Factors”. There is no recommended action or direction provided on the ,
“Consider Factor Worksheet” for the Board to follow in granting or denying
parole. The majority of cases heard by the Board fall into the “Consider
Factors”category. Therefore, for most of its cases the Parole Board has no
objective direction to follow, as required by NRS 213.10885.
b. The Parole Board’s Objective Risk Assessment Worksheet has both mitigating
(Inmate able to change) and aggravating or static (not ever changing) items
listed. On Im. Russell Crew’s 2014 P.B. Objective Risk Assessment Worksheet
the Parole Board scored him one point, which identified him, as“low risk to
reoffend. Of all the mitigating factors, which Russell has the power to change
the only one unchecked was work release program, which his sentence does
IF THE RISK IS LOW—LET THEM GO
not allow. Only one aggregating factor was selected out of the many on the
Board’s form, “nature of crime”, which is static and unchanging. Russell was
only 19 years old when this crime was committed.
The Parole Board’s sole use of a static factor as their sole reason for denial of parole
causes many of the repeated denials of parole.
(Aging Inmate article excerpt from Harwood Parole Board Chair New York) (16-1)
RAPP New York Release Aging Project, “The age group, elderly (over 50) cost triple to
incarcerate…”
(16-1)
VIOLATING INMATE(S) DUE PROCESS TO RECEIVE A PAROLE HEARING
AND REVOCATIONS BY THE PAROLE BOARD LEADS TO LITIGATION
Attachment 17
a. Violating inmates Due Process leads to litigation against the State’s
agencies.
b. Retaliation against Inmate’s Constitutional Rights who seeks redress
through appeals and the Courts .
c. Litigation, Breach of Settlement Agreement and ongoing litigation against
the Parole Board is not reflected in the Parole Board files for any new
future Commissioner(s) to review. The new Commissioners will refer to
the Parole Board’s previous decision and will not know that the Parole
Board had violated the inmate’s rights.
INMATE LITIGATION AGAINST THE PAROLE BOARD : Attachment 18
It is an interesting fact that the inmates who have litigated against the Parole
Board have received numerous parole denials for many years, which seems to go against
the common sense evaluation of the Parole Board’s Objective Risk assessment for those
inmates, who score “low risk to reoffend”.
b. Inmate litigators who received multiple parole denials:
take out Nolan or reorder
1. Nolan Klein, died in prison after 21 years of claiming his innocence and
successfully litigating. Through litigation in Nolan 2004 Klein v
Crawford Inmate Klein was offered on June 5, 2007 a parole if he would
drop his current suit against the Parole Board, he declined. The Parole
revoked his previous granted paroles that had already expired years earlier
IF THE RISK IS LOW—LET THEM GO
to place him back on to his 1st life sentence. (Parole Board letter to Klein
(18-1)
Klein next parole hearing was held on September 27, 2007. At which time
the Parole Board had Klein escorted down to the parole Board hearing.
Klein informed them that he was appealing their previous decision in the
Klein v Crawford case. A progress Report was not submitted to the Parole
Board as per required by the Administrative Regulation. Klein was seen
in abstention and his parole was denied.
Klein filed a letter with the Parole Board Chairman Dorla Salling. Klein
was denied a parole.
Replace then with filed
In 2008, Klein’s then suit in Klein v Bisbee. Tab. Klein died while his
case was pending.
2. Jesse Anderson vs: Connie Bisbee, his Court Order Feb. 24, 2016:
“Defendant may proceed with claim against Bisbee on 14th
Amendment
Rights”. Although this is a parole revocation case the Court still has
found that the inmate has standing against Chairman Bisbee.
3. Norman Crew was paroled in 1996 by a previous parole board from a life
and its use enhancement after 15 yrs of incarceration with Williams
goodtime credits correctly applied. In 2006 he won his lawsuit against the
Parole Board (18-2) and was deemed eligible for parole custody to
the streets, 3/2008. He has now served 20+ years on his 2nd
life and its use
with repeated P.B. Objective Risk Assessments rating him as “low risk to
reoffend” but the static unchangeable “nature of crime” is always listed as
reason for denial. Since winning his lawsuit against the P.B. he has been
repeatedly denied parole with the maximum allowable by law 3yr.“dump”
wait period before future hearings.
4. Russell Crew’s parole in 1995 from a previous Board has satisfied his 1st
life and its use enhancement by actions of both Parole and Pardon’s Boards.
In 2007 Russell won his lawsuit against the Parole Board. (18-3)
According to Russell ‘s Court Order he has been eligible for parole custody
to the streets since 9/2007. Russell’s parole hearing denials mirror his
brother, Norman’s set forth in #2 above.
a. Russell Crew filed Open Meeting Law litigation against the Parole
Board.
Note: P.B. Chair Bisbee has stated she won’t apply any goodtime credits to Norman’s or
Russell’s sentences because of her interpretation of recent legislative intent even though
IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO
Norman’s sentence began in 1981 and Russell’s in 1983 under Williams and their Ct.
Orders (18-2 and 18- 3) reaffirms their sentences are to be reduced by goodtime credits
per Williams. In a letter Bisbee wrote “Norman and Russell had to serve 40 years
minimum or flat before they would be eligible for parole.” (18-4) According to
Chairman Bisbee’s “40 yr. flat statement” the parole hearings the Board holds for them
every three years, are for appearances only. What the Board is doing is just to satisfy the
law requirement, but not actually considering them for real parole to the community.
Norman and Russell have at least 10 years each of goodtime that Bisbee refuses to apply
to their sentences. Took out reduce
4. Robert Stockmier
5. Brian Kamadula (18-5 Ct. Order)
PAROLE BOARD DENIES INMATES WHO MAINTAIN INNOCENCE.
Inmates have been informed by the Nevada Parole Board Commissioners that unless you
admit guilt and remorse, you will not be granted a parole to the street, or unless you stop
appealing your conviction you will not be paroled to the street.
a. Over the years studies on wrongful convictions through eyewitness
identification have been presented to the Advisory Commission on the
Administration of Justice. There is a need in Nevada to have a Public
Integrity Commission Unit established to look into wrongful convictions.
b. 80% - 90% of the applications the Rocky Mountain Innocent Project
receives are declined because the applicant has no DNA available to test.
In some cases, the Nevada Courts are denying Petitioners (inmates) (DNA
testing to even be conducted.) (to even conduct testing on their own
DNA) change words around to clearer meaning
c. Tonja Brown, Advocate for the Innocent, presented to the 2016 Advisory
Commission on the Administration of Justice information as to why
Nevada needs to establish a PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT COMMISSION
to look into wrongful convictions.
By establishing a commission to look into wrongful convictions, it will
reduce the prison population, it will reduce the cost to incarcerate them. It
will lessen the Parole Board hearing’s Agenda. This will save the
taxpayers money and result in freedom for the innocent.
CREDITS; When credits are misapplied it results in more time the inmate must serve
on their sentence and a longer period of time for them to be seen by the Parole Board.
See the legislative discussion
IF THE RISK IS LOW—LET THEM GO
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Minutes/Senate/JUD/Final/682.pdf
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Exhibits/Senate/JUD/SJUD682H.pdf
2015 ASSEMBLY BILL 267 Attachment 19-- Crimes being committed under the age
of 18.
a. Inmates who have committed crimes under the 2015 Assembly Bill 267
are being denied parole and have been disciplinary free for years and even
decades.
b. Inmates who have committed one crime of sexual assault have several (4)
consecutive life sentences for the one and only sexual assault.
c. Studies have concluded that the male brain does not mature until the
approximate age of 25 years of age. The person they were 20, 30, 40
years ago, in most cases, are not the same person now as they were then.
Inmates who committed crimes under the age of 25 years old Research that has been
presented to the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice has shown that
the male brain matures at approximately 25 years of age.
a. The Parole Board is aware of the research on those convicted of murder
and the recidivism rate for murder is low to reoffend.
b. The Parole Board continues to deny inmates with (1-5) life sentences
parole. Some of these individuals have been disciplinary free for years,
have completed their programming, completed their their education and in
some cases even received degrees and are still being denied parole.
c. California has increased the age to 23 yrs of age and under when the crime
was committed, for consideration for parole release.
WAYS TO IMPROVE THE PAROLE BOARD GRANTING MORE PAROLES .
a. Remove all prior sex offenders Psych Panel information from the Parole Board
files and Pardons Board files,
b. 2007 AB 510 “In determining whether to grant parole to a prisoner, the Board
shall not consider whether the prisoner has appealed the judgment of imprisonment for
which the prisoner is being considered for parole.”
Remove all prior Parole Board denials notes and decisions that show the inmate has an
appeal pending.
IF THE RISK IS LOW---LET THEM GO
c. Check for accuracies from any new charges in the NOTIS and discuss it with
inmate that is appearing before the Parole Board Commissioners .
d. Check for resolutions to any litigation filed and won by an inmate. This would
include the removal of any disciplinary action in the inmates NDOC I-File, NDOC C-
File, NDOC Confidential Files, Inspector General’s Files, Chrono Entries for Inmate.
e. Check for resolutions to any litigation filed by an inmate who has filed litigation
against the Parole Board for violating his or her Due Process, and the outcome of such
litigation to be acknowledged publicly during the Parole Board hearing proceedings, and
the litigation win to remain in the Parole Board files of such Due Process violation.
f. All Inmates must see their files and reports case worker that have submitted
documents to the parole board and check for accuracies, allow the Inmate to produce any
new information to be able to support the correct accuracies and have this new
information remain in the NDOC and the Parole Board files.
g. The Parole Board must define exactly their reason for a Parole Board denial
and ways for the inmate to improve in order to be granted a parole.
1. Russell Crew’s 2014 Parole Denial recommended he stay discipline free, a
mitigating factor that he can control, to be considered for parole in the next three years.
This direction seems nonsensical and useless because the only aggregating factor noted
by the Board to deny parole is “nature of offense” which is STATIC and unchanging.
h. Put a twenty year maximum sentence that the inmate must serve on a life
sentence given with (-a) (-5 to) (- life with) the possibility of parole, and a maximum of
no more than 5 years on the second life sentence, third life sentence, fourth life sentence,
and fifth life sentence.
i. Provide funding for Nevada 2011 Senate Bill 201 that established an Ombudsman
under the Attorney General’s Office.
j. Establish an Independent Ombudsman for NDOC.
k. Dissolve the Parole Board and conform to federal guidelines for parole.
l. Establishing an Oversight Committee for the Parole Board.
m. Establishing a PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT COMMISSION to look into
wrongful convictions, it will reduce the prison population, it will reduce the cost to
incarcerate them. It will lessen the Parole Board hearing’s Agenda. This will save the
taxpayers money and result in freedom for the innocent.
IF THE RISK IS LOW—LET THEM GO
These denials cost the taxpayers money at an average cost of $40,000,000.00 per year.
Denials are leading to more years added to the inmate’s incarceration and civil litigation
costs each year at an expense to the taxpayer.
“The continued imprisonment of a group of people who have significantly aged out of
crime, who pose little public safety risk and could in fact contribute to our communities,
expresses clearly the revenge principle. Many long-termers convicted of serious crimes,
people who constitute the bulk of the over fifty prison population, have taken
responsibility for their crimes, transformed their lives, and developed skills and abilities
they lacked before incarceration. They could be released from prison with no risk to
public safety.” Soffiyah Elijah, ESQ.Ex. Dir. N.Y. Correctional Association.
Attach AGING IN PRISON WWW.CENTER FOR
JUSTICE.COLUMBIA.EDU/AGING-IN-PRISON
TONJA BROWN, Advocate for the Inmates and Innocent
2907 Lukens Lane
Carson City, NV 89706
775-882-2744
IF THE RISK IS LOW
LET THEM GO
INDEX
NOTIS NDOC 00027 Highlighted in Orange is “CHARGED OFFENSE” that
has led to litigation.
Highlighted in Blue is “RESULT OFFENSE” that has led to litigation.
Highlighted in Orange “Offense Date” that led to litigation filed in the courts.
Some of the litigation became published opinions in the State of Nevada Supreme
Court, USDC including the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals.
highlighted in Black is ‘REDACTED’ per the 2012 Settlement Agreement made
in the Wrongful death suit case of Nolan Klein.
Documents highlighted in ORANGE THAT ARE NOT REFLECTED IN NOTIS
“Offense in Custody History”, but appear in NOTIS, NDOC and Parole Board
files have led to litigation. attachments 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17,
18.
It should be noted this information provided to this Commission is directly related to the
Discovery that was turned over in the litigation in the wrongful death suit of Nolan Klein
# 28074. USDC Case No. 3:10-cv-00679-ECR-VPC.
Attachment 1 NOTIS File aka Nevada Offender Tracking Information System
(a) NOTIS NDOC 00027 - 00036
(b) NOTIS NDOC 00028 Highlighted in YELLOW is the June 5, 2007 Computer
Glitch that placed false felony Charges in NDOC NOTIS
Attachment 2 - NOTIS Inmate Issue History - NDOC 00001-00008 leads
to USDC litigation that was still pending at the time of Klein’s death in Nolan Klein
vs Tony Corda USDC 3:09-cv-00387-LRH-RAM
Attachment 3 Inmate I-files – Inmates do not have access to all of the
information contained within the I-File. I-file contains confidential information. They
are not able to check for accuracies.
NDOC 01202, 01226, 01228, 01175,
Attachment 4- Inspector General Files -
NDOC 003810 December 2, 2005 letter from the Nevada Attorney General
exonerates Tonja Brown and those involved in the Inspector
General’s investigation regarding the Fred Huston investigation(s) The document was
discovered in the 2010 Wrongful Death Suit of Nolan Klein.
This Document as withheld by Deputy Attorney General William Geddes in the
Nolan Klein vs. Don Helling USDC 3:05-cv-00390-PMP-VPC. DAG Geddes
submitted all 39 pages of the Inspector General investigative reports and NDOC
reports ‘IN CAMERA” to the Court, however, did not turn over the exculpatory
evidence NDOC 03810 stating “NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY EXISTED” in the
Fred Huston Trust.
The withholding of this exculpatory evidence resulted in Klein’s claim being
dismissed with leaving unanswered questions as to whether or not Klein and Brown
will be charged in the future for stealing an elderly inmate Fred Huston’s money.
NDOC employees continued to punish Klein even though he had been exonerated by
the Attorney General’s Office.
Attachment 5 NOTIS INMATE GRIEVANCE REPORT; NDOC 02067-
02077,
Attachment 6 DISCIPLINARY;
(a) NOTIS NDOC 00027- 00036
(b) NOTIS NDOC 00027, 01847- 1845, 01859, 1124-1130,
Violation of Court Procedures MJ 48 See Attachment 7 (d)
(c) NOTIS NDOC 00027, NDOC 01839-01844, 01855, 01859
Tattooing MJ 20, MJ 26 See Attachment 7 (c)
(d) NOTIS NDOC 00027, NDOC 01816- 01828,
Fees for Legal service MJ 29
(e) NDOC 01080 Order correcting clerical error.
MJ 31.
(f) December 12, 2010 Letter from Inmate Russel Crew to AWO
Walsh.
(g.) January 21, 2001 letter to Director Crawford. See Attachment 7
(e) (a),
Attachment 7 LITIGATION .
(a) USDC District of Nevada Case No: 3:94-cv-00219-DWH-VPC . Class action
suit filed by Plaintiffs Lester Canada v McDaniels , Leroy Collins, Nolan E. Klein v.
Robert Miller, Timothy H. Johnson , Armando Nevarez, Sims Stevenson, Daniel Vance,
Leonard D. Vignola v Miller. Vignola v. Miller 2003 Published Opinion 9th
Circuit
Court of Appeals. (Inmates who refused to sign a fiscal agreement to allow NDOC to
take money off their personal accounts for expenses lost their jobs and were kept locked
up. Inmates lost years of credit that could be used towards a parole hearing.)
Chrono Entries for Klein, pg. D-MSJ10, 08/09/1999, 10/18/1999, 11/08/99.
(b) USDC 3:98-cv-00390-HDM-RAM, class action suit, establishes right to practice
Wiccan religion at the NDOC. (After the inmates won, the inmates were
retaliated against by NDOC staff, NODC would breached the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, In 2005 new litigation USDC 3:05-cv-00463-RLH-RAM
that resulted in the Religion Administrative Regulation being set, More
retaliation continued by NDOC staff and in 2009 more litigation was filed against
NDOC in Klein vs. Tony Corda for breach of settlement agreement)
(c) Nolan Klein vs. Warden, Nevada State Prison, John Ignacio
(a) 04-16-2002 NSP Order, USDC cv-n-03-0001-ECR-RAM
(b) Chrono Entries for Klein, pgs. D-MSJ9
(c) NOTIS NDOC 00027 “OFFENSE IN CUSTODY HISTORY-
10/14/1999- MJ 20, Tattooing, 10/14/1999-MJ26 Possession of contraband
(d) NDOC 01839- NDOC 01856 grievances, write up, disciplinary, (NDOC
01855 inmate Sullivan admits at hearing Klein had nothing to with his
tattoo equipment. Klein found guilty.)
(d) Nolan E. Klein vs. E.K. McDaniel, Warden ESP August 27, 1998 Order of
Remand Nevada Supreme Court No: 32107 NDOC
(a) Offense In Custody History- 01/14/1998, MJ46: Violation of Court
Procedures. NDOC 01128 – 01130
(b) NDOC 00124 Memo to Don Helling regarding the violation of Court
Procedures.
Nothing prior to 1999 shows in NOTIS. NOTIS is submitted to the Parole
Board. This “Charge Offense” should have been removed. Where is the
previous 10 years, computer glitch?
(e) Nolan E. Klein vs. Kathy Childress USDC 3:00-cv-00020-HDM-VPC. (Childress
lost her job in the mail room and is assigned to another NDOC position, driving
the inmates to and from places.)
(a) January 21, 2001, Letter from Tonja Brown to Director Crawford. ( letter
was email to Crawford)
(b) NDOC 01170- 01171 04/18/2001 email to Director Jackie Crawford
(c) NOTIS NDOC 00027 5/20/2001. Conversion, Klein is transferred to
NNCC. (Klein had not problems until Helling was promoted to Warden and
transferred to NNCC. Benedetti followed and the retaliation continued until his
death in 2009)
(d) inmate Request Form TONJA ITS IN THE LETTER CHILDRESS.
(e) NDOC 010180 Second Judicial District Court Order correcting Clerical
Error Klien to Klein.
(f) Chrono Entries of Klein, Nolan E. D-MSJ 7 01/12/2001 .
Attachment 8 RETALIATION
(a) Klein v Crawford USDC 3:05-cv-00463-RLH-RAM. Set the NDOC
Administrative Regulation on practicing Wiccan Religion.
(b) Nolan Klein vs. Don Helling USDC 3:05-cv-00390-PMP-VPC.
(a) NDOC 003810 December 2, 2005 letter from the Nevada
Attorney General.This document was discovered in the 2010
Wrongful Death Suit of Nolan Klein. This Document as withheld
by Deputy Attorney General William Geddes in the Nolan Klein
vs. Don Helling USDC 3:05-cv-00390-PMP-VPC. DAG Geddes
submitted all of the Inspector General investigative reports and
NDOC reports ‘IN CAMERA” to the Court, however, did not turn
over the exculpatory evidence NDOC 03811 stating “NO
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY EXISTED” in the Fred Huston Trust.
The withholding of this exculpatory evidence resulted in Klein’s claim
being dismissed, thereby, leaving unanswered questions as to whether
or not Klein and Brown will be charged in the future for exploiting an
elderly inmate, Fred Huston, out of his money.
The retaliatory behavior of NDOC employees resulted in Mr. Klein’s
transfer to LCC in 2005. This delay resulted in him not receiving
proper medical treatment. This played a factor in his untimely death.
(b) Affidavit from Fred Huston and correspondence from Fred Huston.
(c) NOTIS NDOC 00027, External Movement 05/03/2005 Klein was
transferred LCC
(d) NOTIS NDOC 00031 Case Notes 04/27/2007 “IG investigated
some type of money Scam.”
(e) NOTIS NDOC 00031 -00032, 07/26/2005 Huston 72877 victim of
money scam.
(f) NOTIS NDOC 00032, 04/06/2006 “ 1 at NNCC 72877 Fred
Huston.
(g) NOTIS NDOC 00032, 03/14/2007, “I/M is currently housed at GH
at LCC but will RX separation from 72877 at NNCC
(h) NOTIS NDOC 00033, 04/10/2007, will need to stay housed in
Unit 7B because of CMS on main yard.
(i) NOTIS NDOC 00034, 01/24/2008, “HUSTON, FRED # 7288 in
3C7L. I/M needs to remain @ NNCC medical”, Huston and Klein are
together because of medical reason.
(j) NOTIS NDOC 00027, Conversion 03/19/2007- 09/24/2008
Conversion NNCC remained in segregated Unit 7B due to being placed on
enemy list by Don Helling.
(k) NOTIS NDOC 00035 07/07/2009 Klein transferred to NNCC.
(l) NOTIS NDOC 00036 7/13/09 Warden Don Helling Orders Klein
to remain in segregated Unit 7b until he is transferred to the RMF where
he dies on September 20, 2000.
(c) Nolan Klein vs Tony Corda USDC 3:09-cv-00387-LRH-RAM, breach of
Settlement Agreement made in Klein v Crawford USDC 3:05-cv-00463-RLH-RAM.
Klein dies while litigation is pending.
Attachment 9 Segregation -
(a) see Attachment 7 (d) Nolan E. Klein vs. E.K. McDaniel, Warden
ESP August 27, 1998 Order of Remand Nevada Supreme Court No: 32107
NDOC
(b) See Attachment 7 (c) Nolan Klein vs. Warden, Nevada State Prison, John
Ignacio.
(c) See Attachment 8 (b) Nolan Klein vs. Don Helling USDC 3:05-cv-00390-
PMP-VPC.
See Attachment Nolan E. Klein vs. Warden, Nevada State Prison, John Ignacio.
(c) See Attachment 7 (c) Nolan Klein vs. Warden, Nevada State Prison, John
Ignacio
SEE EMAIL ON 2007 08 LAWSUITS.
Attachment 10 computer glitch,
(a). NOTIS NDOC 00028 Highlighted in Yellow is the June 5, 2007 Computer Glitch
that placed false felony Charges in NDOC NOTIS.
NOTIS NDOC 00028 under case notes 10 years are missing, Why? Computer
glitch?
(b) State of Nevada Audit Report, Department of Corrections Accuracy of Criminal
History Information 2013, Pg. 11 Computer Glitch” Had no Consequences
(c) Tonja Brown’s letter to the 2013 Senate Judiciary showing the flaws in the
computer glitch audit, NOTIS NDOC 00028 felony charges.
(d) Ongoing computer glitch problems with NOTIS?
http://parole.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/parolenvgov/content/Information/Q3-
FY2015_Jan-Mar.pdf Board of Parole Commissioners
Quarterly Report January 1, 2015 – March 31, 2015 (Q3 – FY15)
Page 14
“The NDOC NOTIS database was not available at the time of the hearing
or a database issue resulted in a lack of access to information necessary to
conduct the hearing or make an action recommendation
Attachment 11 PAROLE AND PARDONS: REPORT REQUIREMENT
AR NOLAN’S LETTER TO DORLA, ect. AR 52
Attachment 12 PSYCH PANEL; Adminstrative Regulation 537.03
Nolan’s change from moderate to high risk.
Attachment 13 INMATES CONCERNS REGARDING PAROLE BOARD
DENIALS WHEN THEIR PREVIOUS PAROLE WAS GRANTED TO THEIR
NEXT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE, THEY CONTINUE TO IMPROVE , ARE
DISCIPLINARY FREE, A MODEL PRISONER AND ARE NOW BEING
DENIED A PAROLE WITH THE FOLLOWING REASONS!
NDOC has an Appeal pending, 2007 psych panel High Risk.
“NDOC NOTIS database was not available at the time of the hearing or a
database issue resulted in a lack of access to information necessary to
conduct the hearing or make an action recommendation.” Tab ?? pg. 14
Board of Parole Commissioners Quarterly Report January 1, 2015- March 31,
2015 (Q3-FY15)
TAB 14 AGGREGATED SENTENCES
(a) Letter from Inmate Robert Jennings # 54439
. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Minutes/Senate/JUD/Final/682.pdf
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Exhibits/Senate/JUD/SJUD682H.pdf
Attachment 15 VICTIM(S) verses INMATES RIGHT TO RECEIVE A FAIR
PAROLE HEARING.
(a) November 21, 2010 Letter to victim from Parole Board Commissioners. It
demonstrates how the victim can provide information that will remain confidential from
the inmate.
Need to put in CREW BROTHERS INFORMATION
Attachment 16 Parole Board’s Guidelines:
Attachment 17 VIOLATING INMATE(S) DUE PROCESS TO RECEIVE A
PAROLE HEARING AND REVOCATIONS BY THE PAROLE BOARD LEADS
TO LITIGATION
(a) Jesse Anderson
(b) Nolan Klein vs. Jackie Crawford USDC 3:04-cv-00049-ECR-RAM
(a) H & H 001901- H&H 001902 June 4, 2007 Letter from the Nevada
Attorney General offering deal for parole,
(b) Nevada Appeal Story on Nolan’s July 10, 2007 Due Process hearing.
Under stockmeire story on flash drive
(c) NOTIS NDOC 00033 date(s) 8/21/2007 – 10/16/2007 No progress report
submitted to Parole Board denied parole.
(d) September 28, 2007 Letter to Parole Board Chairman Dorla Salling
regarding his Appeal on the July 10, 2007 decision and the September 27, 2007
hearing.
(e) H&H 2433- 2436, Code Of Ethics Parole Board.
(f) Demand for Apology from Dorla Salling, David Smith acknowledges no
progress report was done or submitted on Klein for the September 27,
2007.
Attachment 18 INMATE LITIGATION AGAINST THE PAROLE BOARD
(a) Nolan Klein vs. Connie Bisbee USDC 3:09-cv-00221-LRH-RAM
litigation resulted from the July 10, 2007 and July 27, 2007 Parole Board
hearings. This case was still pending at the time of Klein’s death. See
Attachment 17 (b) Klein v Crawford.
(b) Letter and documents from Inmate Harold Harter # 44629.
Russel Crew establishes under Bowen
Norman Crew establishes under Biffath
Cases to refer to if asked. John Allen murder ? Elmer John Werner murder?
Attachment 19 2015 ASSEMBLY BILL 267
Letter from Inmate Jeff Jones # 25525